Electronic Packet for Downloading
COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
September 14, 2021 (AMENDED Attachments 1 and 2 added to Item 8f)*
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 796 177 907#
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
4a. Proclamation in Recognition of Latino Heritage Month (September 15 - October 15, 2021)
(proclamation enclosed) (p.4)
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 September 14, 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, September 14, 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.
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 September 14, 2021 Page 2 of 3
8. CONSENT AGENDA (consent agenda items are adopted by one motion without discussion)
8a. Approval of the Minutes of the Special Meeting of July 29, 2021, and the Regular Meeting of
August 10, 2021. (no enclosure) (p.6)
8b. Approval of the Claims and Obligations for the Period August 1, 2021, through August 31, 2021, Including
Accounts Payable Check Nos. 940681 through 940958 in the Amount of $2,200,783.55; Accounts Payable
ACH Nos. 037556 through 038338 in the Amount of $66,139,446.46; Accounts Payable Wire Transfer Nos.
015664 through 015683 in the Amount of $12,483,118.62, Payroll Check Nos. 199334 through 199635 in the
Amount of $70,056.74; and Payroll ACH Nos. 1037211 through 1041562 in the Amount of $11,679,514.07
for a Fund Total of $92,572,919.44. (memo enclosed) (p.17)
8c. Order No. 2021-08: An Order Appointing Lara Behnert, Fulgencio Lazo, and Jim Suehiro to the Port
Commission's Portwide Arts and Culture Board (memo, proposed order, and 2019 policy directive
enclosed) (p.20)
8d. Authorization for the Executive Director to Enter into an Annual Maintenance Service Agreement with
adbSafeGate Systems, Inc., for up to Five Years with an Estimated Total Cost of $650,000.
(memo enclosed) (p.28)
8e. Authorization for the Executive Director to Execute a Temporary Lease and Concession Agreement for Duty-
Free Operations between the Port of Seattle and Dufry-Seattle JV for Space at Seattle-Tacoma International
Airport. (memo and agreement enclosed) (p.29)
*8f. Authorization for the Executive Director to Amend the Scope of an Existing Interlocal Agreement (ILA) with
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to Include Transportation Modeling to Support SEA's
Ground Transportation Goals and Century Agenda Environmental Goals. (memo, amendment, previously
adopted agreement, and presentation enclosed) (p.135)
8g. Authorization for the Executive Director to Execute a Change Order to Contract MC-0319902 Elevator Shafts
and Vestibules to Add 233 Calendar Days to the Contract Duration to Reconcile the Contractual Completion
Date to the Actual Completion Date. (CIP #C800789) (memo enclosed) (p.166)
8h. Authorization for the Executive Director to Advertise and Execute a South King County Community Capacity
Building Contract to Support Near-airport Communities and Develop Equity-based Partnerships with the Port
through the South King County Fund (SKCF); and Authorize the Expenditure of the Contract in an Amount
Not-to-Exceed $400,000 from the South King County Fund. (memo and presentation enclosed) (p.169)
9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
10. NEW BUSINESS
10a. Order No. 2021-09: An Order Supporting the Delivery of a Plan to Inventory the Ecological, Land Use
(Including Zoning), and Recreational Site Conditions of the 55 Acres of Port-owned Land within North
SeaTac Park within 30 Days. (proposed order enclosed) (p.183)
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 September 14, 2021 Page 3 of 3
10b. Authorization for the Executive Director to Set 2022 Marine Stormwater Utility Rates with an Increase of
4.6 Percent. (memo, utility strategic plan, and presentation enclosed) (p.185)
11. PRESENTATIONS AND STAFF REPORTS
11a. Equity Index Briefing. (memo and presentation enclosed) (p.231)
11b. Port Policing Assessment Final Report. (memo, report summary, report, and presentation enclosed)
(p.252)
12. QUESTIONS on REFERRAL to COMMITTEE and CLOSING COMMENTS
13. ADJOURNMENT
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
Item Number: 4a
Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
PROCLAMATION
OF THE PORT OF SEATTLE COMMISSION
WHEREAS, Hispanic and Latino communities were nationally recognized for their histories,
cultures, and influence when President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed "National
Hispanic Heritage Week" on September 17, 1968; and
WHEREAS, observance was expanded by President Ronald Reagan to cover a 30-day period
starting on September 15 and ending on October 15, on August 17, 1988, and on
September 14, 1989, President George H.W. Bush became the first president to
declare the 31-day period from September 15 to October 15 as National Hispanic
Heritage Month; and
WHEREAS, September 15 was chosen as the first day of observance because it coincides with
the Independence Day celebrations of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala,
Honduras and Nicaragua. It also coincides with Mexico's independence on
September 16 and Chile's on September 18 - all who declared their independence
from Spain in 1821 and Belize who declared their independence from Great
Britain on September 21, 1981; and
WHEREAS, the theme for 2021's observance is "Esperanza: A Celebration of Hispanic
Heritage and Hope." The theme invites us to celebrate Hispanic Heritage and to
reflect on how great our tomorrow can be if we hold onto our resilience and hope.
It encourages us to reflect on all of the contributions Hispanics have made in the
past and will continue to make in the future. It is also a reminder that we are
stronger together; and
WHEREAS, the term "Hispanic" generally refers to the way that Latin Americans are united
through their connection to Spain and their links to Spanish culture and tradition.
"Latino" is used to refer to the way that Latin Americans are connected to one
another via their common history and culture; and
WHEREAS, in 1997, "Latino" officially appeared on government documents as an option
alongside "Hispanic." Since 1980 and 2000, "Hispanic" and "Latino" have also
become part of the U.S. Census, respectively; and
004
WHEREAS, according to 2020 US Census, Latinos remain the largest minority group in the
United States, and Latinos drove the country's demographic growth to 62.1
million, and Latinos accounted for 51.1 percent of the country's growth, rising to
18.7 percent of the U.S. population. That means the Hispanic population grew by
23 percent from 2010 to 2020; and
WHEREAS, the employee Resource Group (ERG) Latinos Unidos at the Port of Seattle has
embraced the use of "Latino" to describe the unity of their culture, history and
their future. The Office of Equity Diversity at the Port has also made an
intentional decision to use "Latino" in place of "Hispanic;" and
WHEREAS, Latinos of all generations and recent immigrants continue to make great
contributions to our nation, our region, and our Port; and
WHEREAS, the Port continues to take proactive steps to increase diversity at the Port of Seattle
amongst all diverse populations; and
WHEREAS, once a year, all Port employees are asked to voluntarily self-identify their race.
According to current data, 5.7% of employees self-identify as Hispanic/Latino;
and
WHEREAS, this data reflects that the Port has work to do to increase the representation of
Latino employees. The Port continues to review and revise policies and practices
through an equity lens, partnering with Workforce Development to build talent
pipelines, increasing recruitment and outreach efforts to Latino professionals in
the Communities we serve, and providing recognition, training and learning
activities to managers and employees about the importance of diversity, equity
and inclusion; and
WHEREAS, representation matters.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Port of Seattle Commission hereby recognizes September 15 -
October 15 as Latino Heritage Month at the Port of Seattle.
Proclaimed by the Port of Seattle Commission this 14 day of September, 2021.
Port of Seattle Commission
RETURN TO AGENDA 005
P.O. Box 1209
Seattle, Washington 98111
www.portseattle.org
206.787.3000
APPROVED MINUTES
COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING JULY 29, 2021
The Port of Seattle Commission met in a special meeting Thursday, July 29, 2021. The meeting was
held remotely in accordance with Senate Concurrent Resolution 8402 and in accordance with
Governor Inslee's Proclamation 20-28. Commissioners Bowman (joining at 1:33 p.m.), 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 1:00 p.m. to conduct a 2022 Budget planning retreat session.
Attendees
Seattle Port Commissioners Stephanie Bowman, Ryan Calkins, Sam Cho, Fred Felleman,
and Peter Steinbrueck
Executive Director Metruck and the Executive Leadership Team
Elizabeth Morrison, Corporate Finance
Commission Staff: Barb Wilson, Aaron Pritchard, Pete Mills, LeeAnne Schirato,
David Yeaworth, Erica Chung, Michelle Hart, Aubree Payne, Tyler Emsky, Patti Ward,
James Rolph, and Marycruz Talavera
Goals & Objectives
State of the Port
Maritime and Economic Development Capital Improvement Plan Overview
Capital Improvement Plan Funding Capacity Analysis
Port Economic Recovery Discussion
2022 Commission Budget Priorities
Executive Director State of the Port
Executive Director Metruck provided an overview of the state of the Port with respect to the financial
look forward; budget considerations for 2021; 2022 budget guiding principles; and 2022 budget
strategies.
Maritime and Economic Development Capital Improvement Plan
Executive Director Metruck continued the presentation by addressing the Maritime and Economic
Development Capital Improvement Plan the current environment; the preliminary 2022- 2026
Digital recordings of the meeting proceedings and meeting materials are available online www.portseattle.org.
006
PORT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 2 of 3
THURSDAY, JULY 29, 2021
Capital Improvement Plan key projects and improving capital project delivery; capital capacity;
delivery recommendations including additional resources; and future considerations.
Commissioner Felleman expressed his desire for guiding principles to include environmental
concerns and standards.
Discussion ensued regarding:
the T46 agreement;
profitability of cruise overall; and
holding a future potential study session on marina and recreational boating lines of business
and also on the Northwest Seaport Alliance agreement for T46.
CIP Funding Capacity Analysis and Tax Levy Scenarios
Elizabeth Morrison, Corporate Finance Director, provided a report addressing:
inflation continuing to erode purchasing power;
preliminary non-airport capital and funding;
background on the tax levy;
2020 uses of the tax levy;
discretionary levy spending;
options to increase funding capacity;
potential tax levy scenarios;
taxpayer impacts; and
potential changes to the CIP and funding capac ity
Discussion ensued regarding:
adjusting the tax levy rate for next five years to account for inflation and the planning
recommendation to continue the levy funding plan through 2026;
accounting for inflation where needed in certain categories;
knowing the results of the initial levy plan from almost five years ago before the Commission
votes to continue the tax levy beyond the current plan;
the need to review escalations each year;
accounting for taxable units per year; and
growing priority hire because there are not enough people in the pipeline in the construction
trades.
Economic Development ad 2022 Recovery Investments
Members of staff and the Commission discussed:
the financial look forward;
key takeaways from the 13 listening sessions and 101 voices of the Commission's Economic
Recovery Listening Sessions;
issues identified and actions;
the Port's role in helping to drive equitable economic recovery;
SEA's passenger volume forecast;
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.
007
PORT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 3 of 3
THURSDAY, JULY 29, 2021
the status of Alaska cruising underway;
rent deferral program status;
capital project investments;
five-year capital budget summary;
equitable recovery investments made in 2021;
2022 recovery investments;
additions to existing Port community programs, memberships, and sponsorships;
community engagement;
the total of unsubscribed funds in the Economic Development program and Commissioner
Bowman's desire to see the option to increase grants to the cities;
growing priority hire;
the effect of the tax increment financing bill passed by the Legislature and its impact, if any,
of the Port's economic development grant process and levy; and
addressing areas of unincorporated King County that are being missed in the grant process.
(The special meeting recessed at 2:42 p.m. and reconvened at 2:55 p.m.)
Commission Budget Priorities Overview
Members of the Commission discussed their individual budget priorities for the 2022 budget.
3. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:59 p.m.
Prepared: Attest:
Michelle M. Hart, Commission Clerk Sam H. Cho, Commission Secretary
Minutes approved: September 14, 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.
008
P.O. Box 1209
Seattle, Washington 98111
www.portseattle.org
206.787.3000
APPROVED MINUTES
COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING AUGUST 10, 2021
The Port of Seattle Commission met in a special meeting Tuesday, August 10, 2021. The meeting
was held remotely in accordance with Senate Concurrent Resolution 8402 and in accordance with
Governor Inslee's Proclamation 20-28. Commissioners Bowman (12:25 p.m.), Calkins, Cho,
Felleman, and Steinbrueck were present.
1. CALL to ORDER
The meeting was convened at 10:00 a.m. by Commission President Fred Felleman.
2. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to RCW 42.30.110
The public meeting recessed into executive session to discuss three matters relating to
litigation/potential litigation/legal risk (RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)) for approximately 90 minutes, with the
intention of reconvening the public session at 12:00 p.m. Following the executive session, the public
meeting reconvened at 12:00 p.m. Commission President Felleman led the flag salute.
3. APPROVAL of the AGENDA
Without objection, the Presentations and Staff Reports section of the agenda was reordered prior to
New Business.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY None.
5. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Executive Director Metruck previewed items on the day's agenda and made announcements.
6. COMMITTEE REPORTS
There were no committee reports at this time.
7. PUBLIC COMMENT
Public comment was received from the following individual(s):
The following person spoke regarding Agenda Item 10d, thanked the Port for moving forward
with the program, and asked the Port to provide updates and encourages the Port to continue
efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from airlines: city of Des Moines Councilmember
JC Harris.
Digital recordings of the meeting proceedings and meeting materials are available online www.portseattle.org.
009
PORT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 2 of 8
TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 2021
The following person spoke regarding wildfires and climate change: Jordan Van Voast
(corresponding written testimony submitted).
The following person spoke in support of cruise and economic recovery: Patti Mackey,
President and CEO of Ketchikan Visitors Bureau.
The following people spoke in opposition to cruise operations and climate impacts: Iris Antman;
Marcie Keever; Katie McKenna; Carolyn Brotherton; Stacy Oaks; Peggy Printz; Kendra Ulrich;
and Neal Anderson.
In lieu of spoken comment, Ernest Thompson, Normandy Park City Council Member, submitted
written comments in support of a landscape masterplan document documenting the percentage
of plants which are native species.
In lieu of spoken comment, Alexa Fay, submitted written comments regarding her health and
environmental concerns relate to the return of cruise ships to the Port.
In lieu of spoken comment, Laura Gibbons, submitted written comments speaking to a study of
46 US airports and surrounding schools, and data contained therein regarding the effects of
noise on education and health.
In lieu of spoken comment, Shaun Hutchins, submitted written comments asking the
Commission to discuss and share plans for creating multi-story parking and shifting SEA and
the community away from ground level surface lot parking.
[Clerk's Note: All written comments are combined and attached here as Exhibit A.]
8. CONSENT AGENDA
[Clerk's Note: Items on the Consent Agenda are not individually discussed. Commissioners may
remove items for separate discussion and vote when approving the agenda.]
8a. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 27, 2021.
8b. Approval of the Claims and Obligations for the Period July 1, 2021, through July 31,
2021, Including Accounts Payable Check Nos. 940234 through 940680 in the Amount
of $3,391,011.72; Accounts Payable ACH Nos. 036722 through 037555 in the Amount
of $46,636,189.17; Accounts Payable Wire Transfer Nos. 015644 through 015663 in the
Amount of $11,344,239.69, Payroll Check Nos. 199024 through 199333 in the Amount
of $93,999.45; and Payroll ACH Nos. 1032936 through 1037210 in the Amount of
$11,887,618.04 for a Fund Total of $73,353,058.07.
Request document(s) included an agenda memorandum.
8c. Authorization in the Amount of $820,000 for the Executive Director to (1) Proceed with
the Wireless Network (WIFI) Replacement Project; (2) Prepare Design and
Construction Bid Documents for the Replacement of WIFI Technology and Supporting
Equipment at the Port of Seattle Headquarters (P69); and (3) Procure Required
Hardware, Vendor Services, Licensing, and Maintenance Services in Support of WIFI
and Network Services at P69. The Total Estimated Project Cost is $2,500,000 (CIP
#C801063).
Request document(s) included an agenda memorandum.
Minutes of October 27, 2020, submitted for review on November 5, 2020, and proposed for approval on November 10, 2020.
010
PORT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 3 of 8
TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 2021
8d. Authorization in the Amount of $$6,300,000 Out of a Total Estimated Project Cost of
$46,200,000 for the Executive Director to (1) Complete Design and Prepare
Construction Documents for the Airfield Utilities Infrastructure (AUI) Project at
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA) and (2) Enter into Reimbursable
Agreements with the Federal Aviation Administration. (CIP #C801177).
Request document(s) included an agenda memorandum and presentation slides.
8e. Authorization in the Amount of $6,901,000 for an estimated total project cost of
$9,901,000, for the Executive Director to (1) Advertise, Award, and Execute a Major
Works Construction Contract for the Building Controls Upgrade Project at Seattle-
Tacoma International Airport, and (2) Use Port of Seattle Crews for Construction
Activities. (CIP #C800944).
Request document(s) included an agenda memorandum and presentation slides.
8f. Authorization for the Executive Director to Execute a Service Agreement for
Maintenance Services for the Airport's (SEA's) Direct Digital Control System for Up to
Five Years, 2022-2026, for a Total Dollar Value Estimated at $4,800,000.
Request document(s) included an agenda memorandum.
8g. Authorization for the Executive Director to Prepare, Advertise, Award, and Execute
Appropriate Contract Documents to Procure a Chiller Maintenance Service
Agreement for 14 Chillers at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The Agreement is
for a Two-year Contract with Three One-year Service Options to be Determined
Annually by the Port. Total Contract Cost Over the Requested Five-year Period is Notto-Exceed
$600,000.
Request document(s) included an agenda memorandum.
8h. Authorization in the Amount of $65,000 for the Executive Director to Proceed with
Completion of Fisherman's Terminal Lighting Upgrades and to Use Port Crews to
Complete the Installations, for a Total Project Cost of $365,000. (CIP #C800816)
Request document(s) included an agenda memorandum and presentation slides.
8i. Authorization for the Executive Director to Execute a New Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA) Between the Port of Seattle and the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Local 117, Representing Police Specialists at the Port of Seattle, Covering
the Period from July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2022.
Request document(s) included an agenda memorandum and agreement.
Minutes of October 27, 2020, submitted for review on November 5, 2020, and proposed for approval on November 10, 2020.
011
PORT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 4 of 8
TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 2021
8j. Authorization for the Executive Director to Advertise and Award a Major Public Works
Contract to Replace the North Runway Protection Zone Culvert (NRPZ Culvert), a Year
2022 Component of the 2021 to 2025 Airfield Pavement and Supporting Infrastructure
Replacement Program. This Construction Authorization is for $3,800,000 for a Total
Program Authorization to-date of $55,195,000. (CIP #C800930).
Request document(s) included an agenda memorandum and presentation slides.
8k. Request Commission Determination that a Competitive Process in not Reasonable or
Cost Effective in Accordance with Chapter 53.19 RCW; and Authorization for the
Executive Director to Execute an Agreement for Procurement Consulting Support
Services, with The Le Flore Group, in the Amount Not-to-Exceed $450,000, for a
Contract Period of One Year, to Assist with Contracting Processes Including
Opportunity Youth Initiative Procurement(s), Economic Recovery, and for
Recommendations for Improvements to Community Engagement (Grant/Non-profit)
Processes.
Request document(s) included an agenda memorandum.
The motion for approval of consent agenda items 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d, 8e, 8f, 8g, 8h, 8i, 8j, and 8k
carried by the following vote: In favor: Calkins, Cho, Felleman, Steinbrueck (5)
Opposed: (0)
9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None.
11. PRESENTATIONS AND STAFF REPORTS
11a. Q2 2021 Financial Performance Briefing.
Presentation document(s) included an agenda memorandum, report, and presentation slides.
Presenter(s):
Dan Thomas, Chief Financial Officer, Finance & Budget
Borgan Anderson, Director, Aviation Finance & Budget
Kelly Zupan, Director, Maritime Finance
Michael Tong, Director, Finance & Budget
Commission Clerk Michelle Hart read Item 11a into the record.
Executive Director Metruck introduced the item and presenters.
The presentation addressed:
Aviation Division;
o Passenger growth rebounding
o Keys to financial results increased federal relief
o Operating expenses;
o Aero rate base revenue requirements
Minutes of October 27, 2020, submitted for review on November 5, 2020, and proposed for approval on November 10, 2020.
012
PORT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 5 of 8
TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 2021
o Aeronautical revenue
o Non-aero revenue concessions grant impact
o Non-aeronautical revenues
o Strategic use of federal relief grants to achieve debt service coverage target
o 2021 capital spending: 93 percent of budget
o Federal relief bolstering key financial metrics
o 2021 airport development fund balance
o 2021 bond issue
Seaport;
o Seaport performance summary
Maritime Division;
o financial summary and business highlights
o cruise
o second quarter maritime financials
o stormwater utility tracking to budget
o NWSA summary
o joint venture second quarter financials
Economic Development Division;
o financial summary and business highlights
Central Services; and
o financial summary and business highlights
Portwide
o financial summary
o capital spending.
Members of the Commission and staff discussed:
the total amount due to the Port from deferred rent relief;
Port assets generating revenue to the NWSA;
portfolio management; and
leveraging operations in the container business.
10. NEW BUSINESS
10a. Introduction of Resolution No. 3791, Amending Resolution No. 3770, which Adopted
the Charters of the Commission's Standing Committees, by Further Amending the
Energy and Sustainability Committee Charter to Change the Name of the Committee
to the Sustainability, Environment, and Climate Committee.
Request document(s) included an agenda memorandum and draft resolution..
Presenter(s):
Erica Chung, Commission Specialist, Commission Office
Commission Clerk Michelle Hart read Item 10a into the record.
Executive Director Metruck introduced the item and presenters.
Minutes of October 27, 2020, submitted for review on November 5, 2020, and proposed for approval on November 10, 2020.
013
PORT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 6 of 8
TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 2021
The presentation addressed the recommendation of the Energy and Sustainability Committee to
change its name. Committee Members spoke on behalf of the recommendation.
The motion, made by Commissioner Steinbrueck, to Suspend the Rules to consolidate
readings of the Resolution in order to take action at the meeting, carried by the following vote:
In favor: Bowman, Calkins, Cho, Felleman, Steinbrueck (5)
Opposed: (0)
Commissioner Steinbrueck moved to adopt Resolution No. 3791.
The motion, made by Commissioner Felleman, to amend Resolution No. 3791 to insert a
Whereas clause noting the establishment of the committee, carried by the following vote:
In favor: Bowman, Calkins, Cho, Felleman, Steinbrueck (5)
Opposed: (0)
The main motion, as amended, carried by the following vote:
In favor: Bowman, Calkins, Cho, Felleman, Steinbrueck (5)
Opposed: (0)
10b. Authorization for Executive Director to Sign an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) with
University of Washington's Sea Grant Program for the Port to Host One (1) 12-month
Hershman Fellowship Position.
Request document(s) included an agenda memorandum, draft agreement, and presentation slides.
Presenter(s):
Jon Sloan, Senior Manager Environmental Programs, Maritime Environment & Sustainability
Commission Clerk Michelle Hart read Item 10b into the record.
Executive Director Metruck introduced the item and presenters.
The presentation addressed:
the request for the Executive Director to sign an Interlocal Agreement with the University of
Washington;
funding authorized in 2021-22 expense budget ($39,975);
Fellow is a UW employee embedded within Maritime Environment & Sustainability
Department for 12 months;
Start date September 20, 2021.
Members of the Commission and staff discussed credit for marine habitat restoration.
The motion, made by Commissioner Bowman, carried by the following vote: In favor: Bowman,
Calkins, Cho, Felleman, Steinbrueck (5)
Opposed: (0)
Minutes of October 27, 2020, submitted for review on November 5, 2020, and proposed for approval on November 10, 2020.
014
PORT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 7 of 8
TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 2021
10c. Sound Insulation Program Briefing (For information only.)
Request document(s) included an agenda memorandum and presentation slides.
Presenter(s):
Stephen St. Louis, Capital Project Manager V, AV Project Management Group
Julie Kinzie, Noise Program Manager, Sound Insulation
Hanh Nguyen, Senior Manager, Aviation Finance & Budget
Commission Clerk Michelle Hart read Item 10c into the record.
Executive Director Metruck introduced the item and presenters.
A presentation was provided addressing the program's accelerated overview; program status
updates; funding, estimates, and schedule; risks and challenges; and next steps for the program.
Commission and staff discussion ensued regarding:
the number of homes which will be addressed annually;
participation in the program;
program completion in 2026;
negotiation for the investment of dollars as part of the SLOA agreement;
reviewing contours;
the status of homes previously insulated where mitigation efforts failed and doing something
to address those homes separate and apart from FAA grants;
possible internship efforts; and
calculating the energy savings from the mitigation efforts.
Members of the Commission thanked Commissioner Bowman for pushing the program forward.
10d. Authorization for the Executive Director to Plan, Design, and Prepare Construction
Documents for the Apartment Sound Insulation Program Located within the Current
Noise Remedy Boundary Near the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in an Amount
Not-to-Exceed $34,386,000 of a Total Apartment Program Cost of $133,515,000. (CIP
#C200096)
Request document(s) included an agenda memorandum and presentation slides.
Presenter(s):
Stephen St. Louis, Capital Project Manager V, AV Project Management Group
Julie Kinzie, Noise Program Manager, Sound Insulation
Commission Clerk Michelle Hart read Item 10d into the record.
Executive Director Metruck introduced the item and presenters.
The presentation addressed:
apartment design authorization;
Minutes of October 27, 2020, submitted for review on November 5, 2020, and proposed for approval on November 10, 2020.
015
PORT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 8 of 8
TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 2021
high level apartment milestones; and
noise remedy boundaries.
Commission and staff discussion ensued regarding:
prioritizing apartment complexes where large concentrations of people live and their location
to the airport;
applying equity index measures; and
gaining efficiencies in the permitting process in order to accelerate the work.
The motion, made by Commissioner Bowman, carried by the following vote: In favor: Bowman,
Calkins, Cho, Felleman, Steinbrueck (5)
Opposed: (0)
12. QUESTIONS on REFERRAL to COMMITTEE and CLOSING COMMENTS
Commissioner Calkins spoke regarding the ICC Report and climate action and efforts the Port can
take to reduce impacts, including working towards zero emission cruise vessels at the ports.
Discussion ensued around studying the question at the Sustainability, Environment, and Climate
Committee. Commissioner Steinbrueck requested that the discussion be expanded beyond cruise
and to look at emerging technologies toward new carbonless energy.
Commissioner Steinbrueck recognized and congratulated Delmas Whittaker for his promotion to
Director of Marine Maintenance.
13. ADJOURNMENT
There was no further business and the meeting adjourned at 3:17 p.m.
Prepared: Attest:
Michelle M. Hart, Commission Clerk Sam H. Cho, Commission Secretary
Minutes approved: September 14, 2021
RETURN TO AGENDA
Minutes of October 27, 2020, submitted for review on November 5, 2020, and proposed for approval on November 10, 2020.
016
COMMISSION
AGENDA MEMORANDUM Item No. 8b
ACTION ITEM Date of Meeting: September 14, 2021
DATE: September 2, 2021
TO: Steve Metruck, Executive Director
FROM: Duane Hill, AFR Senior Manager Disbursements
SUBJECT: Claims and Obligations August 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 August 1
through 31, 2021 as follows:
Payment Reference Payment Reference
Payment Type Amount
Start Number End Number
Accounts Payable Checks 940681 940958 $ 2,200,783.55
Accounts Payable ACH 037556 038338 $ 66,139,446.46
Accounts Payable Wire Transfers 015664 015683 $ 12,483,118.62
Payroll Checks 199334 199635 $ 70,056.74
Payroll ACH 1037211 1041562 $ 11,679,514.07
Total Payments $ 92,572,919.44
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 Effective
017
COMMISSION AGENDA Action Item No. 8b
Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
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 August 2021, over $80,823,348.63 in payments were made to nearly 618
vendors, comprised of 1,790 invoices and over 6,186 accounting expense transactions. About
91 percent of the accounts payable payments made in the month fall into the Construction,
Employee Benefits, Payroll Taxes, Contracted Services, NWSA Equity, Insurance, Environmental
Remediation, Utility Expenses, Janitorial Services and Sales Taxes. Net payroll expense for the
month of August was $11,749,570.81.
Top 15 Payment Category Summary:
Category Payment Amount
Construction 45,082,474.14
Employee Benefits 9,825,812.07
Payroll Taxes 4,466,778.07
Contracted Services 3,322,461.33
SPA Equity 2,782,000.00
Insurance 2,526,311.93
Environmental Remediation 2,168,286.82
Utility Expenses 1,749,445.89
Janitorial Services 1,644,326.53
Sales Taxes 1,126,756.25
Legal 1,038,979.70
Software 856,757.50
Maintenance Inventory 852,514.32
Parking Taxes 548,264.93
Bond Fees 484,350.18
Other Categories Total : 2,347,828.97
Net Payroll 11,749,570.81
Total Payments : $92,572,919.44
018
COMMISSION AGENDA Action Item No. 8b
Meeting Date: September 14, 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 September 14, 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
019
COMMISSION
AGENDA MEMORANDUM Item No. 8c
ACTION ITEM Date of Meeting September 14, 2021
DATE: August 26, 2021
TO: Stephen P. Metruck, Executive Director
FROM: Tommy Gregory, Senior Art Program Manager
SUBJECT: Affirmation of Port-wide Arts and Culture Board Members
ACTION REQUESTED
Request Commission appointment of three (3) members of the public to the Port-wide Arts and
Culture Board.
SUMMARY
Per the Arts and Culture Policy Directive adopted by the Port Commission in 2019, the Portwide
Arts and Culture Board (Board) is to provide guidance, leadership and support to the Port
of Seattle in its policy to procure, commission and incorporate high-quality art which reflects
the Pacific Northwest's diverse culture, history and environment, as well as develop cultural
programming showcases and public engagement opportunities. The Board is comprised of nine
(9) members of which four (4) members of the public shall be appointed by the Port
Commission (Commission).
The professional public members are integral to the work done by the Board and represent
expertise and experience in fine arts, museum management, architecture and/or design.
Therefore, the Commission is asked to confirm the following appointments to the Board:
1. Lara Behnert
2. Fulgencio Lazo
3. Jim Suehiro
Recommendations for the fourth public position on the Board will be made to the Commission
later this year for appointment.
Attachments
1. Arts and Culture Policy Directive - November 2019
Template revised April 12, 2018.
020
Item number: 8c_attach
Meeting date: September 14,2021
EXHIBIT A: PORT-WIDE ARTS AND CULTURAL PROGRAM POLICY DIRECTIVE
SECTION 1. Purpose.
The Port of Seattle has been an active proponent of art since the late 1960s as the first public
airport to establish a civic art collection. The purpose of this policy directive is to establish a
Port-Wide Arts and Cultural Program which returns the Port of Seattle to its position as a
national leader among its peers for art and cultural programming, promotes art and cultural
programming throughout all Port and Port-related facilities, and engages the public with the
Port. This policy directive replaces the 2009 Port of Seattle Art Program Policy and Guidelines,
approved by Commission on December 15, 2009.
SECTION 2. Definitions.
When used in this policy directive, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings
given below unless the context in which they are included clearly indicates otherwise:
"Art Pools" refers to the Aviation Art Pool and the Non-Aviation Art Pool, to be used to fulfil the
Port's vision of art integrationinto facilities port-wide. These pools are funded by capital
construction project budgets' art allocations of one-percent (one percent).
"Capital Construction Projects" refersto any capital construction project Port-wide that meets
the threshold for Commission review identified in the Delegation of Responsibility and
Authority to the Executive Director.
"Cultural Programming" refers to methods which showcase thespirit of the Pacific Northwest
through performing arts and public engagement activities.
"Port-Wide Arts and Cultural Program Guidelines" (the Guidelines) refers to the document
which outlines specific guidance and direction for art, cultural programming, and the functions
of the Port-Wide Arts and Culture Board.
"Port-WideArts and Cultural Program" refers to the Port of Seattle's program to integrate art
and cultural programming throughout its facilities through the curation of art, development of
cultural showcases, and engagement of the public.
"Port-Wide Arts and Culture Board" (the Board) refers to the board (formerly the Art Oversight
Committee) established by the Port-Wide Arts and Cultural Program which provides guidance,
leadership and support to the Port of Seattle in its policy to procure, commission and
incorporate high-quality art which reflects the Pacific Northwest's diverse culture, history and
environment, as well as develop cultural programming showcases and public engagement
opportunities.
021
"Spirit of the Pacific Northwest" refers to the elementsthat make the region distinct and
unique in character and encapsulates its essence.
SECTION 3. Scope and Applicability.
This policy directive applies to the Port-Wide Arts and Cultural Program, which includes
adequate staffing, operational needs and expenses, applicable projects, art acquisition,
installation and conservation, cultural programming, public engagement and other related
activities.
SECTION 4. Responsibilities.
The Executive Director or their delegate shall:
A. Develop a five-year strategic plan which conveys the Port's vision of art and cultural
programming integration throughout the Port and Port-related facilities.
Develop annual workplans which outline yearly goals for the Port-Wide Arts and
Cultural Program, including art activities, cultural programming activities, and
budget estimates.
(1) Develop strategies to engage the public with art and cultural programming
throughout the Port and Port-related facilities.
(2) Develop the Port-Wide Arts and Cultural Program Guidelines which reflect
the Port's equity diversity and inclusion principles and best practices.
(3) Collaborate with heritage and cultural institutions and community
organizations.
(4) Create and maintain an internal and external collections database to be
updated annually or as changes occur.
(5) Direct the relevant Executive Leadership Team member to appoint three (3)
members to the Port-Wide Arts and Culture Board, representing one each
from divisions contributing to the percentage from capital construction for
art: Maritime; Economic Development; and Aviation.
B. Direct the appropriate resources, including fiscal resources and staff, to adhere to
best practices for art maintenance and conservation and to meet the needs of the
Port-Wide Arts and Cultural Program.
Port of Seattle Port-Wide Arts and Cultural Program Policy Directive Page 2 of 5
022
C. Provide an annual report and update to the Commission on the status of the Port-
Wide Arts and Cultural Program.
SECTION 5. Policy.
A. The Port shall allocate one percent of all capital construction projects in the
authorized capital improvement plan for capital costs associated with art
acquisition, installation and capital services:
B. Specific projects are excluded from the Port-Wide Arts and Cultural Program
including:
(1) Aviation division projects: airfield paving and associated airfield components;
fuel hydrant systems; baggage systems in the bagwell which are not in the
public bag claim area; and underground utilities.
(2) Maritime division projects: fishing-related docks; berths; dolphins; piles;
electrical; and sewage.
C. Art funds shall be allocated from Aviation capital projects to the Aviation Art Pool
and from non-aviation capital projects to the Non-Aviation Art Pool.
D. Art pool fund expenditures shall be reviewed by the Port-Wide Arts and Culture
Board, and only be used for art acquisition and related capital expenditures.
E. The dollar amount equal to one percent for Art shall be a line item identified in the
final commission construction authorization.
F. Changes in capital construction project budgets shall include a proportional change
to the project's one-percent (one percent) allocation for art.
G. The Executive Director shall include adequate operational funding for ongoing art
conservation, maintenance, cultural programming, public engagement and related
staffing needs in their recommended annual budget.
H. The Port-Wide Arts and Culture Board shall provide guidance, leadership, and
support to the Commission in its policy to procure, commission and incorporate
high-quality art that engages the public.
(1) The Board will review art selections and placement.
(2) The Board shall be comprised of nine (9) members:
a. Two (2) commissioners appointed by the Commission President;
Port of Seattle Port-Wide Arts and Cultural Program Policy Directive Page 3 of 5
023
b. Three (3) members of the Executive Leadership Team appointed by the
Executive Director:
i. Maritime Managing Director or designee,
ii. Economic Development Director or designee,
iii. Airport Managing Director or designee; and
c. Four (4) members of the public recommended by the Board and Sr. Art
Manager and appointed by the Commission.
(3) Public members of the Board should be selected representing a diverse
background and extensive experience with fine arts, museum management,
architecture or design.
(4) The Board's membership application process, meeting frequency and protocol,
rules of order, and other specific duties shall be delineated by the Port-Wide Arts
and Cultural Program Guidelines.
(5) The Board shall explore and recommend collaborations, sponsorships and
partnership opportunities with regional government entities and other
institutions, with the goal of stimulating regional economic development,
increasing visibility of the Port and connecting the Port and its activities to the
community.
I. The Port-Wide Art and Cultural Program Guidelines shall
(1) Direct that Port's art collection and cultural programming to represent the
diversity of the people living in King County including indigenous and those
historically marginalized.
(2) Direct the protocol for the procurement, commission, selection, conservation
and maintenance, relocation, deaccession, sale and lease of artwork.
(3) Include protocols for all temporary art exhibits, rotating exhibits and
programing.
(4) Incorporate Port equity, diversity and inclusion principles throughout the entire
program and execution.
(5) Include should also include the following considerations:
a. Complement the overall aesthetic of the surrounding area;
Port of Seattle Port-Wide Arts and Cultural Program Policy Directive Page 4 of 5
024
b. Encapsulate and reflect the spirit of the Pacific Northwest;
c. Coordinate with signage and way-finding when possible;
d. Elevate the Airport's rating on internationally-recognized airportrating
systems;
e.Adhere to industry practice around conservation and maintenance.
f. generally allocate funds to the project that generated the specific
funds, when recommended.
SECTION 6. Program Evaluation.
A. Benchmarks and metrics to evaluate the Port-Wide Arts and Cultural Program shall
include:
(1) The Executive Director shall provide a briefing to the Commission as art
acquisition is executed. The briefing shall inform the Commission of the art
acquired, the cost of acquisition, and the location of where the art will be placed.
(2) Port staff shall provide an annual report and update to the Commission on the
Port-Wide Arts and Cultural Program by June 30th that shall include; include:
a. Budget-versus-actual-costs basis for all art projects;
b. Status of the art pools funds;
c. Summaries of art acquisition, cultural programming, art conservation and
maintenance efforts, including deferred conservation and maintenance
of existing art; and
d. Incorporation of equity, diversity and inclusion principles into the
program and program execution.
J. By September 30, 2020, update the Port-Wide Art and Cultural Program Guidelines
to include direction from this policy and other public and internal sources.
Port of Seattle Port-Wide Arts and Cultural Program Policy Directive Page 5 of 5
025
1
2 Item Number: 8c_order
3 Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
4
5
6 ORDER NO. 2021-08
7 AN ORDER OF THE PORT OF SEATTLE COMMISSION
8
9 Appoint Lara Behnert, Fulgencio Lazo and Jim Suehiro to
10 each serve a three-year term as members of the Port
11 Commission's Portwide Arts and Culture Program Board,
12 effective immediately.
13
14 PROPOSED
15 SEPTEMBER, 14, 2021
16
17 INTRODUCTION
18
19 Per the Arts and Culture Policy Directive adopted by the Port Commission in November 2019,
20 the Portwide Arts and Culture Board (Board) shall be comprised of nine (9) members of which
21 four (4) members of the public shall be appointed by the Port Commission (Commission).
22
23 TEXT OF THE ORDER
24
25 The Port Commission hereby appoints Lara Behnert, Fulgencio Lazo, and Jim Suehiro to each
26 serve a three-year term as members of the Port Commission's Portwide Arts and Culture
27 Program Board, effective immediately.
28
29
30 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER
31
32 The professional public members are integral to the work done by the Board and represent
33 expertise and experience in fine arts, museum management, architecture and/or design.
34 Therefore, the Commission is asked to confirm the following appointments, establishing the first
35 members of the Board:
36
37 Lara Behnert:
38 Lara leads the global art program for Starbucks Coffee Company, helping to evolve store designs
39 and develops the company's brand expression. Ms. Behnert's background is in creative direction
40 and design for magazines, brands, and worthy causes. She loves solving problems beautifully,
41 and with meaning. Lara is a proud graduate of Rhode Island School of Design and Juneau-
42 Douglas High School in her hometown of Juneau, Alaska. She spent many years in New York
43 City, and currently lives in Seattle.
44
45
46
Order 2021-08 Appointing Members to the Portwide Arts and Culture Board Page 1 of 2
026
47
48 Fulgencio Lazo:
49 Fulgencio was born in Oaxaca, Mexico and studied at the Fine Arts School at the University of
50 Benito Jurez of Oaxaca, under Professor Shinzaburo Takeda, where he specialized in
51 printmaking. In 1990, Fulgencio came to Seattle to study lithography at Cornish College of the
52 Arts. Despite his intentions of returning to his native Oaxaca, he fell in love and initiated his bi-
53 national career, dividing his time between Seattle and Oaxaca.
54
55 Jim Suehiro
56 Also, an active advocate for diversity in architecture, Jim served as the American Institute of
57 Architects (AIA) Seattle President in 1988-89, and on the AIA National Board of Directors
58 2008-09 representing the AIA Northwest and Pacific Region.
59
60 Mr. Suehiro is the owner of Suehiro Architecture, which focuses on airport design and is an
61 active advocate for diversity in architecture. Mr. Suehiro served as the AIA Seattle President and
62 on the Board of Directors representing the AIA Northwest and Pacific Region, in the past. He
63 also served as the Director of the University of Washington of Built Environments Institute for
64 Built Environment Innovation, where through his leadership in the development of integrated
65 practice methods positively influenced project delivery transformation within the building
66 industry. Additionally, Jim Suehiro has experience working as a project designer for McKinley
67 Architects, as an airport design principal, as well as a principle working with NBBJ.
68
RETURN TO AGENDA
Order 2021-08 Appointing Members to the Portwide Arts and Culture Board Page 2 of 2
027
COMMISSION
AGENDA MEMORANDUM Item No. 8d
ACTION ITEM Date of Meeting September 14, 2021
DATE: September 14, 2021
TO: Stephen P. Metruck, Executive Director
FROM: Stuart Mathews, Director, Aviation Maintenance
SUBJECT: Request Commission Authorization for the Executive Director to Enter into an
Annual Maintenance Service Agreement with adbSafeGate Systems, Inc
Amount of this request: $650,000
Total estimated project cost: $650,000
ACTION REQUESTED
Request Commission authorization for the Executive Director to enter into an annual
maintenance service agreement with adbSafeGate Systems, Inc., for up to five years with an
estimated total cost of $650,000.
SUMMARY
The SafeDock system assists aircraft and pilots in safe and efficient docking, which may save fuel
and can reduce taxi-lane congestion. SafeDock will provide the Port and airlines with real on-gate
and off-gate information to better utilize the limited gate facilities as well as provide real-time
video for gate scheduling and airline asset tracking. Furthermore, the advanced SafeDock units,
connected to the Gate Operating System (GOS), provide automatic Ramp Information Display
(RIDS) capability that allows airlines to display critical flight information to ramp workers.
The SafeDock system was procured through a competitive process under project No. C800779
and is under construction, with gates coming on-line throughout 2021. This maintenance service
agreement will allow the Port to seek assistance from the company SafeGate to maintain and
operate this system when additional resources are needed beyond that which on-site Airport
staff can provide.
There are no attachments to this memo.
RETURN TO AGENDA
Template revised April 12, 2018.
028
COMMISSION
AGENDA
MEMORANDUM
Item No. 8e
ACTION ITEM Date of Meeting September 14, 2021
DATE: June 11, 2021
TO: Stephen P. Metruck, Executive Director
FROM: Dawn Hunter, Director, Aviation Commercial Management
Khalia Moore, Interim Sr. Manager, Airport Dining and Retail
SUBJECT: Interim Lease and Concession Agreement for Duty-Free Operations
ACTION REQUESTED
Request Commission authorization for the Executive Director to execute a Temporary Lease and
Concession Agreement for Duty-Free Operations between the Port of Seattle and Dufry-Seattle
JV for space at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On September 11, 2012, the Port of Seattle Commission (Commission) authorized the Chief
Executive Officer to release a Request for Proposal (RFP) and execute a seven-year agreement
with a Duty-Free Operator. Dufry-Seattle JV (Dufry) was the successful respondent. The current
term of the Lease and Concession Agreement between the Port of Seattle (Port) and Dufry
expired in October 2019 and has continued on a month-to-month holdover status. This
agreement included units in South Satellite, Central Terminal, Concourse A and Concourse D at
the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (Airport).
The COVID-19 pandemic had a great impact on the entire aviation industry. The loss of
international passengers during the pandemic has severely and adversely impacted the overall
duty-free operations and sales at the Airport. International travel has not returned in a
meaningful way to support improved sales. In an effort to preserve the viability of its business
and to protect the investments of its Airport Concessions Disadvantaged Enterprise (ACDBE)
partners, Dufry has requested to re-negotiate the terms of its expired contract.
Approval of this temporary agreement will continue provide the additional services for the
passengers, sustain revenues for the Airport, and continue the financial viability of the
concession's operator until the complete Expanded Duty-Free plan is fully developed. On the
contrary, if Aviation Commercial Management (AVCM) was unable to partner with Dufry for
Template revised January 10, 2019.
029
COMMISSION AGENDA Action Item No. _8e__ Page 2 of 3
Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
mutually favorable terms, the Airport could possibly lose an important and valuable passenger
amenity for international passengers.
JUSTIFICATION
After the award of the Duty-Free Agreement in 2012, the Airport embarked on Airport Dining
and Retail (ADR) Master Planning initiative, which the Port Commission authorized staff to move
forward with, in 2014. The ADR Master Plan revamps the concessions program, by staggering the
lease expiration dates, and diversifying the program from a mainly "master concessions" to right
size of the number of small and minority owned businesses who are eligible to participate in the
program. However, the ADR Master Plan does not include certain airport wide passenger
amenities like Duty Free, Currency Exchange and Vending, therefore these services would need
to be considered separately.
In 2019, staff identified the need for additional Duty-Free space in the airport. Once adequate
space was identified, the Airport collaborated with multiple stakeholders to research and plan
for the Expanded Duty-Free project on Concourse A and the South Satellite (SSAT) upgrade; these
projects are currently in the planning phase. To prepare a comprehensive package for a Request
for Proposal (RFP), the Airport will need to fully develop the Concourse A and SSAT projects.
Information such as square footage and scope of work, delineating between base building and
tenant responsibility, are primary for a proposer to provide the best financial projections and
overall response to the RFP. With this in mind, Duty Free Planning will happen in three phases.
As stated above the first phase is the evaluation of our current duty-free footprint to develop a
plan of integration with the new and updates spaces. Phase two is the Concourse an Expanded
Duty Free that will be brought to Commission on October 26th for approval to move the Project
Delivery Document (PDD) forward. Phase three is moving in tandem with the other phases as
ADR is working with AV Planning to develop the new SSAT upgrade plan.
As the Airport further develops the scope associated with the Expanded Duty-Free planning, staff
recommends Commissioner approval of a temporary agreement with Dufry. Once the Expanded
Duty-Free planning is complete, a comprehensive Duty-Free plan and subsequent RFP will be
communicated, and staff will return to Commission for approval.
DETAILS
Key Terms of the Agreement are:
Agreement Term:
o Commence on January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2024
Payments as Percentage Rent:
o Under $5 million - 16%
o Between $5 million and $10 million - 18%
o Over $10 million - 20%
Airport Concessions Disadvantage Business Enterprise (ACDBE) Participation
o Concessionaire will maintain a minimum participation 12.5% ACDBE.
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
030
COMMISSION AGENDA Action Item No. _8e__ Page 3 of 3
Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST
(1) Draft of Duty-Free Temporary Agreement
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS
September 11, 2012 The Commission authorized the Chief Executive Officer to release a
Request for Proposal (RFP) and execute a seven-year agreement with a Duty-Free
Operator.
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
031
Item number: 8e_attach
Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
LEASE AND CONCESSION AGREEMENT
FOR
DUTY FREE OPERATIONS
Between
PORT OF SEATTLE
And
DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
032
SUMMARY OF KEY LEASE TERMS
(This page is for quick reference only, please refer to the Agreement for the full detail)
Agreement Date
Concessionaire: Ms. Courtney M. Thornton
Executive Vice President
DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
One Meadowlands Plaza, 11th Floor
East Rutherford, NJ 07073
Notice to Open Date January 1, 2021
Expiration Date: Unless earlier terminated, pursuant to any provision of this Agreement,
the term shall commence on January 1, 2021 and continue for a period
of three (3) years December 31, 2023 the Expiration Date. Said
Agreement may be extended for two (1) additional options period, by
mutual consent from both the Port and Concessionaire, so long as both
parties have provided to each other written notice consenting to the
option not less than one hundred eighty (180) calendar days' prior to
the Expiration Date and/or Option Expiration Date.
Premises: Units:
CA-11
CT-07
SS-08
As more fully defined in Sections 1.35, 3.1 and Exhibit B
Use of Premises: For the purpose of Duty-Free concessions with an approved for Duty-
Paid concessions within the space.
Rent Commencement Date: January 1, 2021
Minimum Annual Guarantee Beginning on January 1, 2022 Concessionaire shall begin to pay a
Amount: Minimum Annual Guarantee, as more fully defined in Section 5.2.
Percentage Fees: Percentage of
Annual Gross Sales
Gross Sales
Annual Gross Sales less than $5,000,000 16%
Annual Gross Sales between $5,000,001 and 18%
$10,000,000
Annual Gross Sales equal to or greater than 20%
$10,000,000
Security Deposit One Million One Hundred Eighty Thousand and 00/100
($1,180,000.00) Dollars
Airport Concession Airport Concessions Disadvantage Business Enterprise participation
Disadvantaged Business 12.5%
Enterprise Participation
Remittance Address For Port of Seattle
Payments Only: PO Box 24507
Seattle, WA 98124-0507
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 1 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
033
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY OF KEY LEASE TERMS ...................................................................................... 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. 2
SECTION 1: DEFINITIONS........................................................................................................ 3
SECTION 2: TERM ...................................................................................................................... 8
SECTION 3: LEASED PREMISES............................................................................................. 9
SECTION 4: USE OF PREMISES ............................................................................................ 10
SECTION 5: RENT AND FEES PAYABLE TO THE PORT................................................ 15
SECTION 7: SECURITY DEPOSIT......................................................................................... 23
SECTION 8: MARKETING PROGRAM................................................................................. 24
SECTION 9: COMMON AREAS .............................................................................................. 24
SECTION 10: IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................ 25
SECTION 11: MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR...................................................................... 27
SECTION 12: UTILITIES.......................................................................................................... 28
SECTION 13: TAXES................................................................................................................. 30
SECTION 14: INDEMNITY ...................................................................................................... 31
SECTION 15: INSURANCE ...................................................................................................... 32
SECTION 16: DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION....................................................................... 35
SECTION 17: ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLEASE.................................................................... 36
SECTION 18: DEFAULT ........................................................................................................... 38
SECTION 19: RELOCATION OR TERMINATION OTHER THAN FOR DEFAULT.... 42
SECTION 20: ACCESS; EASEMENTS ................................................................................... 44
SECTION 21: NONWAIVER; RIGHT TO PERFORM......................................................... 45
SECTION 22: SURRENDER ..................................................................................................... 46
SECTION 23: AIRPORT SECURITY...................................................................................... 46
SECTION 24: ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS ................................................................ 48
SECTION 25: ACDBE REQUIREMENTS; NON-DISCRIMINATION .............................. 50
SECTION 26: MISCELLANEOUS ........................................................................................... 51
SECTION 27: SIGNATURES .................................................................................................... 55
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 2 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
034
THIS LEASE AND CONCESSION AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made as of the__________ day
of __________, 2021 by and between the PORT OF SEATTLE ("Port"), a Washington municipal
corporation, and DUFRY-SEATTLE JV ("Concessionaire"). For and in consideration of the mutual
promises, covenants and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the parties agree:
WITNESSETH;
WHEREAS, the Port owns and operates Seattle-Tacoma International Airport ("Airport"),
located on property as legally described in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Port has agreed to lease to Concessionaire, and Concessionaire has agreed to
lease from the Port, certain Premise(s) within the Airport for Concessionaire's conduct of commercial
activity, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement; and
NOW, THEREFORE, Port and Concessionaire, for and in consideration of the covenants and
conditions and agreement provided hereinafter, do agree as set forth herein.
ARTICLE I
SECTION 1: DEFINITIONS
For purposes of this Agreement, the following terms have the following meanings:
1.1 Additional Rent. "Additional Rent" shall mean other rents due to the Port, including but not
limited to, maintenance, repairs, and utility charges, as specified in this Agreement.
1.2 Agreement. "Agreement" shall mean this Lease and Concession Agreement, including
amendments agreed to in writing by the parties.
1.3 Airport. "Airport" shall mean the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, a legal description of
which is attached as Exhibit A.
1.4 ACDBE. "Airport Concessions Disadvantaged Business Enterprise" and "ACDBE" shall mean
a business, whether it is a corporation, sole proprietorship, partnership or joint venture certified
as an ACDBE by the State of Washington, of which at least fifty-one percent (51%) of the
interest is owned and controlled by one or more socially and economically disadvantaged
individuals as defined in the Airport and Airways Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987
and the regulations promulgated pursuant at 49 CFR Part 23.
1.5 Alterations. "Alterations" shall mean following the Build-Out Deadline, any non-structural
changes, additions, substitution, or improvements.
1.6 Annual Report. "Annual Report" shall mean a report that reflects the amount of Gross Sales
for the preceding calendar year, subject to the provisions of Section 6.3 of this Agreement.
1.7 Build-Out Deadline. Not Applicable
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 3 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
035
1.8 Concessionaire. "Concessionaire" shall mean and refer to the party executing this Agreement
with the Port, as identified in the preamble of this Agreement and referenced in the Summary
of Key Lease Terms.
1.9 Day. "Day" or "Days" shall, unless otherwise specified, mean and refer to calendar day(s), not
business day(s).
1.10 Default Rate. "Default Rate" shall mean the rate set forth in Section 5.11 and referenced in the
Summary of Key Lease Terms or the maximum rate provided by law for a transaction of this
nature, whichever is less.
1.11 Delay Damages. Not Applicable
1.12 Display Allowances. "Display Allowances" shall mean the total of all display allowances,
placement allowances, special purpose allowances, or other promotional incentives received by
Concessionaire (or Concessionaire's subtenant, licensee or concessionaire) from vendors,
suppliers or manufacturers and any other revenue of this type, and further, if such allowances
are received as a part of non-differentiated sales by Concessionaire (or Concessionaire's
subtenant, licensee or concessionaire) operating at multiple airports, Concessionaire shall,
subject to the Port's review, reasonably allocate the allowances between the airports and
designate the amount to be allocated to the Airport for the calculation of Percentage Fees due.
Display Allowance shall not include any manufacturer's or supplier's rebates and/or volume
discounts that are properly considered, under general accepted accounting principles, credits
against the cost of goods sold.
1.13 Enplaned Passenger. "Enplaned Passenger" shall mean all those passengers boarding flights
at the Airport from scheduled or chartered flights, whether domestic or international, including
non-revenue passengers (but excluding airline crew for the flight), and including those
passengers connecting from arriving flights of the same or another airline. Enplaned Passengers
shall generally be measured for the entire Airport and separately for Concourse A, Concourse
B, Concourse C, Concourse D, the North Satellite and the South Satellite.
1.14 Expiration Date. "Expiration Date" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 2.1 and
referenced in the Summary of Key Lease Terms.
1.15 First Full Year. "First Full Year" shall mean the first, full calendar year of the Agreement term.
1.16 First Partial Year. "First Partial Year" shall mean that portion of the calendar year
commencing on the Rent Commencement Date and ending December 31 of the year in which
the Rental Commencement Date falls.
1.17 Franchise Agreement. "Franchise Agreement" shall mean granted rights to use any trade
name that may be used at the Premises for the entire term of the Agreement, pursuant to a
franchise or license agreement.
1.18 Gross Sales. "Gross Sales" shall mean the total dollar amount derived from the sale or delivery
of any food, beverages, or merchandise or the performance of any services from, in, upon or
arising out of the Premises, whether by Concessionaire, any subtenants, licensees or
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 4 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
036
concessionaires of Concessionaire, or any other person on Concessionaire's behalf, whether at
wholesale or retail, and whether for cash, check, credit (including charge accounts), exchange
or in kind (specifically including the amount of credit allowed for any trade-ins). No deduction
shall be permitted for credit card fees (e.g., interchange or processing fees) or thefts, and for
uncollected or uncollectible credit or charge accounts. No deduction shall be permitted for sales
discounts (such as prompt-payment discounts) that are not specifically reflected on the original
invoice/receipt at the time of the sale. Gross Sales shall, without limiting the generality of the
foregoing, also include:
1.18.1 Orders that originate or are accepted at the Premises, even if delivery or performance is
made from or at any other place. All sales made and orders received at the Premises
shall be deemed as made and completed therein, even though payment of account may
be transferred to another office/location for collection.
1.18.2 Orders that result from solicitation off the Premises, but which are delivered or
performed from the Premises, or by personnel either operating from the Premises or
reporting to or under the control or supervision of any employee employed at the
Premises.
1.18.3 Mail, catalog, computer, internet, telephone, or other similar order received at, ordered
from, or billed from the Premises.
1.18.4 Sales originating from whatever source, and which Concessionaire (or Concessionaire's
subtenants, licensees or concessionaires) in the normal and customary course of
Concessionaire's (or Concessionaire's subtenant's, licensee's or concessionaire's)
operations would credit or attribute to Concessionaire's (or Concessionaire's
subtenant's, licensee's or concessionaire's) business conducted in the Premises;
1.18.5 Display Allowances, whether received by Concessionaire or its subtenant, licensee or
concessionaire; and
1.18.6 All monies or other things of value received by Concessionaire (or Concessionaire's
subtenant, licensee or concessionaire) from Concessionaire's (or Concessionaire's
subtenant's, licensee's or concessionaire's) operations at, upon or from the Leased
Premises which are neither included in nor excluded from Gross Sales by the other
provisions of this definition, including without limitation, finance charges, late fees, and
all deposits not refunded to customers.
1.18.7 Gross Sales shall not include, and may be adjusted to exclude, the following when
properly recorded and accounted for:
A. Tips and gratuities paid directly to employees;
B. The exchange of merchandise between stores of Concessionaire (or
Concessionaire's subtenant, licensee's or concessionaire's) where such
exchanges are made solely for the convenient operation of Concessionaire's (or
Concessionaire's subtenant's, licensee's or concessionaire's) business and not
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 5 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
037
for the purpose of consummating a sale which has been made at, upon or from
the Premises;
C. Returns to shippers or manufacturers with no mark-up;
D. Allowances or refunds allowed by Concessionaire to customers because of
unacceptable or unsatisfactory goods or services to the extent such allowance or
refund was actually granted and adjustment actually made;
E. Complimentary meals, the amount of any employee discount on meals, and any
meals provided by Concessionaire to its employees without cost as a benefit;
F. The amount of any sales tax or other excise tax imposed upon the customer and
collected by Concessionaire as agent for the taxing body imposing the tax and
billed to the customer as a separate item;
G. Revenue from the sale of uniforms or clothing to Concessionaire's employees
where it is required that such uniforms or clothing be worn by the employees;
H. Any sums that represent discounts so long as the amount of the discount is shown
on the face of the receipt issued to the customer; and
I. Any item, such as the cost of third-party shipping, for which the Concessionaire
is reimbursed at actual cost therefor; provided, however, in the event that
Concessionaire charges a customer more than the actual cost of such item
(specifically including through the inclusion of a "handling" or similar charge
by Concessionaire), the entire amount shall be includable with Gross Sales and
shall not be subject to exclusion.
1.19 Initial Improvements. Not Applicable
1.20 Initial Improvement Amount. Not Applicable
1.21 Last Full Year. "Last Full Year" shall mean the last, full calendar year of the Agreement term.
1.22 Last Partial Year. "Last Partial Year" shall mean that portion of the calendar year commencing
on January 1 following the Last Full Year and ending on the Expiration Date (or earlier
termination date); provided, however, (a) in the event that the Rent Commencement Date falls
on January 1, there shall be no First Partial Year, and (b) in the event that the Expiration Date
falls on December 31, there shall be no Final Partial Year.
1.23 Legal Requirements. "Legal Requirements" shall mean and refer to all laws, statutes and
ordinances including building codes and zoning regulations and ordinances and the orders,
rules, regulations and requirements of all federal, state, county, city or other local jurisdiction
departments, agencies, bureaus, offices and other subdivisions thereof, or any official thereof,
or of any other governmental, public or quasi-public authority, including the Port, which may
be applicable to or have jurisdiction over the Premises.
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 6 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
038
1.24 Lien. "Lien" shall mean and refer to any mortgage, lien, security interest, encumbrance, charge
on, pledge of, conditional sale or other encumbrance on the Premises or the Initial
Improvements, Midterm Refurbishment, any Alteration, fixture, or improvement.
1.25 Midterm Deadline. Not Applicable
1.26 Midterm Refurbishment. Not Applicable
1.27 Minimum Annual Guarantee. "Minimum Annual Guarantee" shall mean the minimum
annual payment amount by Concessionaire to the Port as described in Section 5.
1.28 Net Book Value of Leasehold Improvements. "Net Book Value of Leasehold Improvements"
shall mean and refer to the dollar amount generated through application of rules established in
Section 19.5.
1.29 Notice to Proceed. Not Applicable
1.30 Notice to Open Date. "Notice to Open Date" shall mean the date in which the Concessionaire
shall begin operations within the Premises (January 1, 2021).
1.31 Operating Standards. "Operating Standards" shall have the meaning set forth in Section
18.4.1, and shall include, without limitation, the ADR Concessions Operating Standards, as
defined in Section 4.3.3.
1.32 Percentage Fee. "Percentage Fee" shall mean the percentage fee paid by Concessionaire on
Gross Sales according to the Proposal and this Agreement.
1.33 Port. "Port" shall mean the Port of Seattle, a Washington municipal corporation.
1.34 Port Standards. "Port Standards" shall include, without limitation, the Airport Rules and
Regulations, the Regulations for Airport Construction, the Tenant Design and Construction
Process Manual, Seattle Tacoma International Airport Construction General Requirements, the
Safety Manual, the CAD Standards Manual, the Concession Design Guidelines, the Port's
mechanical, electrical, water and waste, and industrial waste and storm drainage standards and
any other, similar document establishing requirements and/or standards for design and
construction at the Airport as more fully defined in Exhibit E.
1.35 Premises. "Premises" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 3 and in the Summary of Key
Agreement Terms; provided, however, in the event that the Premises include any units the
precise boundaries of which have not, as of the date of execution of this Agreement, been
determined, the parties agree that they may without the need for a formal amendment of this
Agreement substitute a revised lease outline drawing accurately identifying the location and
boundaries of the particular unit when the same has been finally determined. This ministerial
revision shall be reflected by a countersigned letter that reflects that parties' agreement on the
revised lease outline drawing, and upon such written agreement the revised lease outline
drawing shall automatically supersede any such drawing originally included as an exhibit to this
Agreement.
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 7 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
039
For the purpose of this Agreement, Premises shall also include any office or storage space leased
by Concessionaire. These Premises may be added or deleted by either the Port or
Concessionaires by a countersigned letter that reflects the change in Premises. Concessionaire
shall be charged the going rental rate for the area added to the Premises in accordance with
similar rates charged for Airport Dining and Retail tenants.
1.36 Proposal. Not Applicable
1.37 Removable Fixtures. "Removable Fixtures" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 10.4.
1.38 Rent. "Rent" shall mean and refer collectively to sums denominated as either Minimum Annual
Guarantee, Percentage Fee, Additional Rent or any other sums or charges otherwise payable by
Concessionaire under the terms of this Agreement. Failure by Concessionaire to pay any sum
denominated as Rent shall entitle the Port to pursue any or all remedies specified in this
Agreement as well as remedies specified in RCW Chapter 59.12 or otherwise allowed by law.
1.39 Rent Commencement Date. "Rent Commencement Date" shall mean the date on which
Concessionaire first opens for business. For the purpose of this Agreement the Rental
Commencement Date shall be set as January 1, 2021.
1.40 Security Deposit. "Security Deposit" shall mean a good and sufficient corporate surety
company bond, irrevocable stand-by letter of credit, or other security in a form approved by the
Port in the amount set forth in the Section 7 and referenced in the Summary of Key Lease Terms.
1.41 Summary of Key Lease Terms. "Summary of Key Lease Terms" shall mean the cover page
to the Agreement that identifies certain key terms of this Agreement.
SECTION 2: TERM
2.1 Agreement Term. Unless earlier terminated, pursuant to any provision of this Agreement, the
term shall commence on January 1, 2021 and continue for a period of three (3) years
December 31, 2024 the Expiration Date. Said Agreement may be extended for two (1)
additional options period, by mutual consent from both the Port and Concessionaire, with one
hundred eighty (180) calendar days' notice prior to the Expiration Date and/or Option
Expiration Date.
2.2 Holding Over. If Concessionaire, with the written consent of the Port, holds over after the
expiration or sooner termination of this Agreement, the resulting tenancy will, unless otherwise
mutually agreed, be for an indefinite period of time on a month-to-month basis. Any holding
over by Concessionaire after the expiration or earlier termination of the Agreement with the
express, written consent of the Port shall not, in any manner, constitute a renewal or extension
of the Agreement or give Concessionaire any rights in or to the Premises.
In order to facilitate transition from Concessionaire's tenancy to that of another Concessionaire
at the expiration of the term of the Agreement, the Port may request, and Concessionaire shall
agree, to extend its tenancy as to some or all of the Premises on a month-to-month basis. No
later than nine (9) months before expiration of the Agreement, the parties shall meet to discuss
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 8 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
040
the process for transitioning occupancy of the Premises in order to minimize disruption of
service to the traveling public at the Airport.
During such month-to-month tenancy, Concessionaire shall, unless otherwise mutually agreed,
pay to the Port the same Rent that was in effect immediately prior to the month-to-month
tenancy. Concessionaire will continue to be bound by all of the additional provisions of this
Agreement insofar as they may be pertinent.
SECTION 3: LEASED PREMISES
3.1 Premises. Commencing on the Notice to Open Date, the Port hereby leases to Concessionaire
and Concessionaire hereby leases from the Port, the Premises. In the event that there is different
Notice to Open Dates for different portions of the Premises, the lease for each portion of the
Premises shall commence on its respective Notice to Open Date. Concessionaire may with Port
approval operate a temporary operation on the Premises during any construction and/or midterm
refurbishment. Such operations will be subject to payment of Rent as identified in Section 5.
Space ID Approximate Square Exhibit
Footage
CA-11 2,455 B
CT-07 875 B
SS-08 3,728 B
3.2 Acceptance of the Premises. Concessionaire shall promptly examine the Premises no later than
ninety (90) days from the date the Premises are turned over to Concessionaire for build-out.
Unless Concessionaire provides the Port with written notice of any defect or problem within ten
(10) working days of the examination, Concessionaire shall have accepted them in their present,
"as-is" condition, and agrees to make any changes in the Premises necessary to conform to
federal, state and local law applicable to Concessionaire's use of the Premises and obtain
necessary permits therefor.
3.3 Quiet Enjoyment. So long as Concessionaire is not in default under this Agreement and subject
to the specific provisions, covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement, the Port
covenants and agrees that the quiet and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Premises by
Concessionaire shall not be disturbed or interfered with by the Port or by any other party
claiming by or through the Port.
3.4 No Warranty. The Port makes absolutely no warranty, promises or representations as to the
economic viability of any concession location, including the Premises. Passenger counts,
passenger flows and other customer traffic are for the most part products of airline schedules
and gate utilization. Further, Federal Aviation Administration and Transportation Security
Administration rules and regulations governing security and emergency situations may restrict
access to the Airport or portions thereof. Except as specifically set forth in this Agreement,
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 9 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
041
Concessionaire shall not be entitled to any relief in the event passenger counts, passenger flow,
customer traffic, or Gross Sales are other than Concessionaire predicted or projected.
3.5 Office and/or Storage Space. At Concessionaire's request, the Port may add or delete office
and/or storage space to this Agreement through an Office/Storage Rider. Concessionaire agrees
and acknowledges that it shall be responsible for any rentals and fees associated with such
request. Rentals and fees shall be modified from time to time.
3.6 Lease Outline Drawing (LOD). Concessionaire agrees that the Port may make modifications
to the Lease Outline Drawing (LOD) provided in Exhibit B, to reflect final build-out conditions.
Such modifications shall be made through a Premise Notice.
3.7 Annual Review. At the Port's discretion on or about the anniversary of the Rent
Commencement Date, the Port and Concessionaire shall tour the Premises and jointly agree
upon what, if any, routine refurbishment is required to maintain the Premises in a First Class
Manner, as required by Section 4.3, and Concessionaire shall, except to the extent any such
work is the responsibility of the Port under Section 11.1, promptly undertake any necessary
repair, maintenance, or Alterations at Concessionaire's expense. If the Port and Concessionaire
cannot jointly agree upon the type and extent of refurbishment necessary, the Port may, as set
forth in Section 4.3, determine the refurbishment required. For purposes of this Section,
"refurbishment" shall generally be limited to the routine repainting or redecoration of
concession space within the Premises, including the replacement or repair of worn carpet, tile,
furnishings, fixtures, finishes, or equipment. Nothing in the requirement for an annual review,
however, shall relieve Concessionaire from the obligation to maintain Premises in a First Class
Manner on an ongoing basis as required by Section 4.3, and Concessionaire shall specifically
perform maintenance and refurbishment as needed to continuously comply with that standard.
The failure to timely undertake required refurbishment shall be grounds for the imposition of
liquidated damages as provided in Section 18.4 and Exhibit F.
SECTION 4: USE OF PREMISES
4.1 Use of Premises. Concessionaire shall use the Premises for:
4.1.1 Duty Free Merchandise. Duty Free Merchandise shall be sold to international ticketed
passengers in accordance with the 19 CFR 19.35 19.39, where a duty and/or tax is
applied. Merchandise includes but is not limited to, tobacco, alcohol, fashion,
electronics, luggage, cosmetics, perfume, confectionary, etc.
4.1.2 Duty Paid Merchandise. Duty Paid Merchandise shall be merchandise that a ticketed
domestic passenger may purchase and shall have all duties and/or taxes applied.
Merchandise includes but is not limited to, fashion, electronics, luggage, cosmetics,
perfume, confectionary, etc.
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 10 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
042
as referenced in the Summary of Key Lease Terms and further described in the Proposal, and
Concessionaire shall not use the Premises for any other purpose without the written consent of
the Port. Concessionaire recognizes that its specific limited use is a material consideration to
the Port in order that the Airport will, in the Port's sole discretion, maintain an appropriate
tenant mix so as to efficiently serve the traveling public and to produce the maximum Gross
Sales possible for all tenants.
4.2 Rights. Concessionaire's rights and privileges in the Agreement are:
4.2.2 Non-Exclusive. Concessionaire's Merchandise as more fully defined in Section 4.1.2
rights and privileges in this Agreement are non-exclusive, and nothing in this Agreement
precludes the Port from entering into an agreement with any other parties during the
term of this Agreement for the sale in any part of the Airport of the same or similar food,
beverages, merchandise or service which Concessionaire is permitted to sell or offer,
whether such agreements are awarded competitively or through negotiations and
regardless of whether the terms of such agreements are more or less favorable than the
terms of this Agreement.
4.3 Port Standards.
4.3.1 First-Class Operations. In addition to, and not in lieu of, any other more specific Port
Standards that may be set forth in this Agreement, Concessionaire shall maintain a first
class standard of service equivalent to the highest standards within the food and retail
service industry ("First Class Manner"). For the purposes of this Agreement, "First Class
Manner" shall mean the standard of products, cleanliness, and customer service that
would be reasonably expected in upscale shopping malls and other similar high-quality
airport and non-airport retail and food service facilities. The Port desires to provide the
air travelers and the public with facilities, service, food, beverages and retail
merchandise of first-class quality. For food and beverage operations, Concessionaire
must ensure that the air travelers and the public are provided first class quality foods
with adequate portions, comparable to or better, than that offered for sale in similar food
service operations in the greater Seattle-Tacoma region offering like products. Unless
the Port's determination is shown to be arbitrary and capricious by "clear, cogent and
convincing evidence," the Port shall be the final arbiter of what constitutes a First-Class
Manner and Concessionaire's compliance or noncompliance with this Section 4.3.1.
The failure to comply with this standard shall be grounds for the imposition of
Liquidated Damages as provided in Section 18.4 and Exhibit F.
4.3.2 General Operating Standards. Concessionaire shall not use or occupy or permit the
Premises or any part thereof to be used or occupied, in whole or in part, in a manner
which would in any way: (i) violate any present or future Legal Requirements or Port
Standards, (ii) violate any of the covenants, agreements, provisions and conditions of
this Agreement, (iii) violate the certificate of occupancy then in force with respect to the
Agreement, (iv) constitute a public or private nuisance, (v) impair, in the Port's
reasonable judgment, with the character, reputation or appearance of the Airport or the
Port, or (vi) occasion discomfort, inconvenience or annoyance to either the Port or its
adjoining tenants. Without limiting the foregoing, Concessionaire specifically agrees to
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 11 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
043
comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the Port, whether now in existence
or hereafter promulgated, pertaining to (a) the Airport and its terminals, which exist for
the general safety and convenience of the Port, its various tenants, invitees, licensees
and the general public, and (b) the common food and beverage areas located within the
Airport. The failure to comply with this standard shall be grounds for the imposition of
Liquidated Damages as provided in Section 18.4 and Exhibit F.
4.3.3 Specific Operating Standards. Concessionaire shall, at all times, comply with the
specific operating standards set forth on Exhibit C, as from time to amended by the Port
(the "ADR Concessions Operating Standards"). Concessionaire expressly
acknowledges and agrees that it Premises and operations are subject to inspection as set
forth on Exhibit C. The failure to comply with the operating standards shall be grounds
for the imposition of liquidated damages as provided in Section 18.4 and Exhibit F. The
Port reserves the right, in the Port's sole and absolute discretion, upon thirty (30) days
written notice to Concessionaire, to amend, substitute, supplement and/or extend the
ADR Concessions Operating Standards set forth on Exhibit C, including the terms and
conditions set forth therein, and upon written notice to Concessionaire of any such
modification(s), such modified ADR Concessions Operating Standards shall be
complied with by Concessionaire, without need for formal amendment to this
Agreement.
4.3.4 Food Handling Standards. Without limiting any other requirements of this Agreement,
Concessionaire shall comply with all local health department and HACCP standards
regarding the proper and safe receiving, storage, preparation and serving of all food and
beverage items as more fully defined in the ADR Concessions Operating Standards. The
failure to comply with these standards shall be grounds for the imposition of liquidated
damages as provided in Section 18.4 and Exhibit F.
4.3.5 Unified Pest Control Standard. Without limiting any other requirements of this
Agreement, Concessionaire shall comply with the Port's unified pest control standard
as more fully outlined in Exhibit C. The failure to comply with this standard shall be
grounds for the imposition of Liquidated Damages as provided in Section 18.4 and
Exhibit F.
4.3.6 Street Pricing Policy. Concessionaire shall, at all times, comply with the street pricing
policy set forth on Exhibit D. Without limiting any other rights that may exist under this
Agreement, Concessionaire acknowledges that the failure to adhere to the policy shall
be grounds for the imposition of liquidated damages as provided in Section 18.4 and
Exhibit F.
4.3.7 Franchise Standards. Without limiting or otherwise reducing any of the standards
otherwise imposed under this Agreement, Concessionaire shall also meet or exceed all
franchise standards that are imposed on Concessionaire by any Franchisor. Copies of
those franchise standards and performance audit forms shall be sent to the Port prior to
the Notice to Open Date. Copies of inspections conducted by the Franchisor or any
mystery shopper service hired by the Franchisor shall be sent to the Port within ten (10)
days of receipt by Concessionaire or any subtenant.
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 12 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
044
4.3.8 Employment Standards. It is the stated expectation of the Port of Seattle Commission
that Airport employers, including Concessionaires, provide quality jobs for its
employees. To this end Concessionaire shall comply with all, applicable federal, state,
and local laws and ordinances related to wages and benefits as well as Concessionaire's
specific commitments regarding wages and benefits made as part of its Proposal. The
Port also expects Concessionaire to participate in, and otherwise provide documentation
relevant for, an employment continuity pool established by the Port. Likewise,
Concessionaire shall comply with its specific commitments regarding hiring from the
employment continuity program made as part of its Proposal. Concessionaire shall, as
required by Section 6, provide such reports as may be requested by the Port to document
Concessionaire's compliance with these requirements.
4.3.9 Small Business Standards. It is also the policy of the Port of Seattle Commission to
encourage Airport businesses, including Concessionaire, to make every reasonable
effort to maximize the contracting opportunities for small business (including ACDBEs,
as addressed below in Section 25) in the construction and operation of the concession.
To this end, Concessionaire shall comply with its specific commitments regarding use
and inclusion of small business that it made as part of its Proposal. Concessionaire shall,
as required by Section 6, provide such reports as may be requested by the Port to
document Concessionaire's compliance with these requirements.
4.3.10 Airport Rules and Regulations. The use by Concessionaire of the Premises, the public
area and all other area of the Airport shall be subject to such Airport Rules and
Regulations as are now or may in the future be adopted by the Port, provided that such
Rules and Regulations do no conflict with applicable provisions of state or federal law.
Except in the case of emergency Rules and Regulations, the Port shall give
Concessionaire written notice and opportunity to comment on any proposed Rules and
Regulations that would affect Concessionaire's operation at the Airport before such
proposed Rules and Regulations are adopted by the Port. Within twenty (20) calendar
days after receipt of the Port's notice if such proposed Rules and Regulations,
Concessionaire may submit in writing, objections to the proposed Rules and
Regulations. The Port shall have fifteen (15) calendar days after receipt of the objection
to meet and discuss the proposed Rules and Regulations. If the Concessionaire's
objections are not resolved, the Port shall provide the proposed Rules and Regulations
and the Concessionaire's objections to the Port Commission prior to implementation,
and Concessionaire shall have twenty (20) calendar days to comment to the Port
Commission on its objections.
After the Concessionaire comments to the Port Commission of its objections, or if the
Concessionaire fails to comment to the Port Commission during the allotted twenty (20)
calendar day period, the Port shall implement the proposed Rules and Regulations.
Exhibit E provides the most current link to the Airport's Rules and Regulations.
4.3.11 Conflict. Whenever a conflict arises between state or local law, ordinances or
regulations and federal law or regulations, the Rules and Regulations, any operating
standards of the Port (including, without limitation, the ADR Concessions Operating
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 13 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
045
Standards set forth on Exhibit C), the most stringent law, regulations rule or standard
applicable to this Agreement and Concessionaire's performance shall control.
4.4 Franchise. If the Premises are operated under a franchise or license arrangement,
Concessionaire represents and warrants to the Port that Concessionaire has been granted the
right to use any trade name, concept or brand that may be used at the Premises for the entire
term of this Agreement, pursuant to a franchise or license agreement (the "Franchise
Agreement") with the trade name owner (a "Franchisor"). At the Port's request, Concessionaire
agrees to provide the Port with a copy of the Franchise Agreement, or a certification from
Franchisor that such Franchise Agreement exists, and reasonable evidence that such agreement
remains in full force and effect. Concessionaire agrees that the termination of Concessionaire's
right to use the licensed trade name, concept or brand at the Premises or to conduct an operation
at the Premises of the type then conducted by or under license from Franchisor under
Concessionaire's trade name (whether due to modification or termination of the Franchise
agreement or otherwise), shall constitute a material breach of Concessionaire's obligations
under this Agreement. Concessionaire agrees that if such Franchise Agreement is terminated,
the Port shall have the right to exercise any or all of its remedies pursuant to Section 18 of this
Agreement.
4.5 No Liens. Concessionaire will not directly or indirectly create or permit to be created and/or to
remain, a Lien upon the Premises, including any Initial Improvements, Midterm Refurbishment,
Alterations, fixtures, improvements or appurtenances, except those Liens expressly permitted
in writing by the Port. In the event any such Lien(s) have been created by or permitted by
Concessionaire in violation of this provision, Concessionaire shall immediately discharge as of
record, by bond or as otherwise allowed by law, any such Lien(s). Concessionaire shall also
defend (with counsel approved by the Port), fully indemnify, and hold entirely free and harmless
the Port from any action, suit or proceeding brought on or for the enforcement of such lien(s).
As used in this Section, "Lien" shall mean and refer to any mortgage, lien, security interest,
encumbrance, charge on, pledge of, conditional sale or other encumbrance on the Premises, any
Alteration, fixture, improvement or appurtenance to the Premises, or any larger building and/or
property of which the Premises may be a part.
4.6 Copyright Clearance. Concessionaire and Concessionaire's Subtenants are responsible for
obtaining permission to transmit any copyrighted music, including but not limited to, radio
broadcasts, recorded music, and television broadcasts, in their Leased Premises at the Airport
in compliance with Federal Copyright Law found in Title 17 of the United States Code, or as
amended.
4.7 Signs. No signs, promotions or other advertising matter, symbols, canopies or awnings
(collectively "Signs") shall be attached to or painted on within, or outside the Premises,
including the walls, windows and doors thereof, without the prior written approval of the Port.
Any permitted Sign shall be professionally prepared. The Port may, without notice and without
any liability therefore, enter the Premises and remove any items installed or maintained by
Concessionaire in violation of the provisions of this Section 4.7. At the termination or sooner
expiration of this Agreement, Concessionaire shall remove all such Signs attached to or painted
by Concessionaire at its own expense, and Concessionaire shall repair any damage or injury to
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 14 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
046
the Premises and correct any unsightly condition caused by the maintenance and removal of its
Signs.
If Concessionaire fails to comply with the requirements of this Section 4.7, the Port shall have
the right to require Concessionaire to restore the Premises to the condition existing immediately
prior to the unauthorized installation or modification of the Sign. In the event that
Concessionaire fails to restore the Premises within three (3) days following notice by the Port,
Concessionaire shall, in addition to (and not in lieu of) any other rights or remedies the Port
may have (whether under this Agreement or in law or in equity), pay the Port liquidated
damages as provided in Section 18.4 and Exhibit F until Concessionaire has restored the
Premises. Concessionaire and the Port agree that the Port will incur damages as a result of the
failure to restore the Premises, which damages are impractical or impossible to determine, and
that this amount is a reasonable forecast of the damages to be suffered by the Port.
4.8 Mandatory Programs. Concessionaire understands that, from time to time, the Port may
institute certain programs that the Port believes, in its sole judgment, will be in the best interests
of the Airport or its tenants. Such programs shall include, but not be limited to, trash recycling,
composting, concession use of durable table ware or compostable/recyclable to-go service ware,
commuter trip reduction, and Aircraft Operations Area (AOA) Clean Surface Program for
Foreign Object Debris (FOD). Concessionaire agrees to promptly comply with and carry out all
obligations issued by the Port under such programs, as the same may exist from time to time.
The Port shall, at Concessionaire's cost as set forth in the then-current Airport tariff, provide
pest control services to the Premises as part of the Port's Unified Pest Management Program.
Such charges to Concessionaire shall commence with the start of services provided under the
Unified Pest Management Program at the Premises.
SECTION 5: RENT AND FEES PAYABLE TO THE PORT
5.1 Calendar Year Accounting. For the convenience of the Port, this Agreement will generally be
administered financially on a calendar year basis. Consequently, in the event that the Rent
Commencement Date falls on anything other than January 1 or the Expiration Date falls on
anything other than December 31, the Agreement term will include partial calendar years at the
beginning and end of the Agreement term.
5.2 Minimum Annual Guarantee. Beginning on January 1, 2022, Concessionaire will begin to
pay a Minimum Annual Guarantee (MAG). The MAG will be eighty-five percent (85%) of the
total paid in Percentage Fee by Concessionaire to the Port for the previous calendar year. Said
MAG will be recalculated on annual basis.
5.2.1 Payment. The Minimum Annual Guarantee amount shall be divided into equal monthly
payments. The Minimum Annual Guarantee shall be payable monthly, in advance,
without notice from the Port and without abatement, setoff, or deduction, beginning on
the first day of the month after the Rent Commencement Date and thereafter on or before
the first day of each and every month during the Agreement term.
5.2.2 Relief for Exceptional Circumstances.
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 15 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
047
If the total number of International Enplaned Passengers for any calendar month
decreases by more than twenty percent (20%) from the same calendar month of the
prior year (the "Reference Month"), then:
(a) the Minimum Annual Guarantee payment due for the next month (or such later
month immediately following the date on which the number of Enplaned
Passengers can reasonably be determined) shall automatically be adjusted
downward by the percentage decrease in the number of Enplaned Passengers for
the month experiencing the decrease;
(b) the Minimum Annual Guarantee for the Year in which the reduced monthly
payment amount falls shall also be reduced by a like dollar amount; and
(c) the adjustments in (a) and (b) shall be referred to as "Exceptional Enplanement
Adjustments."
If the Reference Month was a month that previously triggered Exceptional
Enplanement Adjustments, the Reference Month above shall instead mean the same
calendar month of the most recent year that did not trigger Exceptional Enplanement
Adjustments for that calendar month.
5.3 Percentage Fees. Commencing on the Rent Commencement Date, Concessionaire
shall also pay the Port a percentage fee (the "Percentage Fee") according to the following
schedule and referenced in the Summary of Key Lease Terms and the Proposal, to the extent
the Percentage Fee is higher than the monthly payment of the Minimum Annual Guarantee
paid to the Port pursuant to Section 5.3.
Percentage of
Annual Gross Sales
Gross Sales
Annual Gross Sales less than $5,000,000 16%
Annual Gross Sales between $5,000,001 and 18%
$10,000,000
Annual Gross Sales equal to or greater than 20%
$10,000,001
For the First Partial Year and the Final Partial Year, any breakpoints identified in the schedule
for payment of a higher Percentage Fee shall be pro-rated based on the number of days in the
partial year.
5.4 Contract Rent. The Port and Concessionaire agree that the first seven percent (7%) of
Concessionaire's Gross Sales paid to the Port (whether paid as part of the Minimum Annual
Guarantee or as Percentage Fees) shall be the contract rent for the Premises for purposes of the
Leasehold Excise Tax Payable pursuant to Chapter 82.29A of the Revised Code of Washington,
unless the Washington State Department of Revenue imposes a different percentage allocation.
All amounts in excess of the amount deemed subject to Leasehold Excise Tax shall be
consideration for the concession rights granted under this Agreement.
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 16 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
048
5.5 Additional Rent. During the term of this Agreement, Concessionaire shall also pay to the Port,
within thirty (30) days of invoice, any maintenance and repair charges required by Section 11,
any utility charges required by Section 12, any Unified Pest Management charges required by
Section 4.8, and such other amounts as may be owing by Concessionaire to the Port pursuant to
the terms of this Agreement.
5.6 Payments; Automatic Transfer. All Rent due under this Agreement shall be paid in lawful
money of the United States of America. Concessionaire may not pay any Rent due under this
Agreement utilizing a credit card or other, similar instrument for which the Port must pay a
commission or discount on the gross funds remitted; all payments shall be made by check, ACH
credit transfer, or other form of payment approved by the Port. In the event the Concessionaire
delivers a dishonored check or draft to the Port in payment of any obligation arising under this
Agreement, Concessionaire shall pay a service charge in the amount established by the Port
from time to time, along with interest thereon at eighteen percent (18%) per annum from the
original due date of such dishonored check or draft without further demand. In such event, the
Port may require that future payments be made by cashier's check or other means acceptable to
the Port.
Instead of requiring Concessionaire to pay Rent or other charges in a manner pursuant to Section
5.8, the Port may, at its sole option, upon not less than sixty (60) days prior notice to
Concessionaire, require Concessionaire to promptly execute and deliver to the Port any
documents, instruments, authorizations, or certificates required by the Port to give effect to an
automated debiting system, whereby any or all payments by Concessionaire of whatsoever
nature required or contemplated by this Agreement shall be debited monthly or from time to
time, as provided in this Agreement, from Concessionaire's account in a bank or financial
institution designated by Concessionaire and credited to the Port's bank account as the Port
shall designate from time to time.
Concessionaire shall promptly pay all service fees and other charges connected with its use of
an automated debiting system, including, without limitation, any charges resulting from
insufficient funds in Concessionaire's bank account or any charges imposed on the Port.
In the event that Concessionaire elects to designate a different bank or financial institution from
which any fees or other charges under the Agreement are automatically debited, notification of
such change and the required documents, instruments, authorizations, and certificates specified
in Section 5.6 must be received by the Port no later than thirty (30) days prior to the date such
change is to become effective.
Concessionaire agrees that it shall remain responsible to the Port for all payments of Rent and
other charges pursuant to the Agreement, even if Concessionaire's bank account is incorrectly
debited in any given month. Such fees and other charges shall be immediately payable to the
Port upon written demand.
Concessionaire's failure to properly designate a bank or financial institution or to promptly
provide appropriate information in accordance with this Section 5.8 shall constitute a default of
this Agreement.
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 17 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
049
5.7 Late Charges. Concessionaire hereby acknowledges that late payment by Concessionaire to
the Port of Rent, or any portion thereof, or any other sums due hereunder will cause the Port to
incur costs not otherwise contemplated by this Agreement. Accordingly, if any installment of
Rent, or any portion thereof, or any other sum due from Concessionaire shall not be received
by the Port within ten (10) days after such amount shall be due, then, without any requirement
for notice by the Port to Concessionaire, Concessionaire shall pay the Port a late charge equal
to five percent (5%) of such overdue amount unless such late charge is specifically waived by
the Port in writing. The parties agree that such late charge represents a fair and reasonable
estimate of the costs the Port will incur by reason of late payment by Concessionaire.
Acceptance of such late charge by the Port shall in no event constitute a waiver of
Concessionaire's default with respect to such overdue amount, nor prevent the Port from
exercising any of the other rights and remedies in this Agreement.
In addition to the late charges provided for in this Section, interest shall accrue on any unpaid
Rent and/or other remuneration, or any other sums due, at the Default Rate of Eighteen Percent
(18%) per annum from the date due until paid.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section, interest and late charges shall be
subject to a minimum, monthly charge of Five Dollars ($5.00).
5.8 Accounting Procedures.
5.8.1 Records. Concessionaire will establish and maintain an accounting system (specifically
including all books of account and records customarily used in the type of operation
permitted by this Agreement) in full accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles and otherwise reasonably satisfactory to the Port for the determination of any
Rent or other computations, which may be necessary or essential in carrying out the
terms of this Agreement. Concessionaire shall maintain its records relating to the
operation permitted by this Agreement for a period of at least three (3) years after the
end of each calendar year (or until the close of any ongoing audit thereof being
conducted by, or on behalf of, the Port); provided, however, that the Port may request
that any such records be retained for a longer period of time, in which case
Concessionaire, at its option, may deliver such records into the custody of the Port
5.8.2 Monthly Sales Reporting. With thirty (30) days written notice from the Port,
Concessionaire agrees to submit all monthly sales electronically using the Port provided
link. The failure to timely provide the reports required by this Section shall be grounds
for the imposition of liquidated damages as provided in Section 18.4 and Exhibit F.
5.8.3 Cash Handling. Without limiting any more general requirements of this Section 5,
Concessionaire shall observe the cash handling and point-of-sale requirements set forth
below.
A. Establish Procedures. Concessionaire shall at all times observe cash and record
handling policies and procedures and maintain cash and record handling systems
in accordance with reasonable written policies and procedures adopted by
Concessionaire. Concessionaire may revise those procedures from time to time
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 18 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
050
upon the advent of generally accepted technological changes and shall provide
the Port notification in the event that it does so. All of Concessionaire's cash and
record handling policies and procedures shall be subject to review and approval
by the Port upon request.
B. Point of Sale Equipment. Concessionaire's point-of-sale equipment or devices
shall properly, accurately and reliably record all information pertaining to each
and every transaction entered into between Concessionaire and its customers.
The required information includes but is not limited to, the time and date of the
transaction; payment method; the sales amount or amounts for all goods or
services purchased; the transaction location and operating name; and all other
information obtained from the customer or other sources as pertaining to each
transaction.
C. Sequentially Numbered Transactions. Concessionaire agrees to sequentially
number all transactions and agrees to provide upon request by the Port a list of
transactions that were initiated, but which were eventually voided or cancelled,
or for which Concessionaire received no sales or other revenue.
D. Changes in Operations. Concessionaire agrees to notify the Port of any changes
in business operations that change or alter the accounting processes or
procedures or information storage or data retrieval for Concessionaire's business
operations covered under this Agreement.
5.9 Audit.
5.9.1 Right to Audit. The Port shall have the right to time to inspect and audit, through its
accountants or representatives, Concessionaire's records with reference to the
determination of any matters relevant to this Agreement, and Concessionaire shall make
or cause to be made the records readily available for such examination. The Port may
undertake such inspection and/or audit at any reasonable time and from time to time. In
the event that Concessionaire's records are not maintained in the Puget Sound region,
they shall be made available for audit locally within twenty (20) business days of a
request by the Port, or Concessionaire shall pay in full, any travel and related expenses
of Port representative(s) to travel to the location outside the Puget Sound region. In
addition, the Port shall have the right to conduct a "surprise" audit not more frequently
than twice every twenty-four (24) months, and, in the event that Concessionaire's books
and records are not maintained locally, Concessionaire shall further pay in full, any
travel and related expenses of the Port representative(s) to travel to the location outside
the Puget Sound region for such "surprise" audit(s).
5.9.2 Right to Review Records of Concessionaire's Other Stores. In connection with the
audit, the Port or its representative will have the right to inspect the records from any
other store operated by Concessionaire, but only if such inspection is reasonably
necessary to verify Concessionaire's reportable Gross Sales.
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 19 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
051
5.9.3 Right to Copy Concessionaire's Records. The Port or its representatives shall have
the right to copy any records of Concessionaire supporting Gross Sales or any other
matter the determination of which is relevant to this Agreement.
5.9.4 Concessionaire Must Reconstruct Insufficient Documentation. If upon examination
or audit the Port's accountant or representative determines that sufficient documentation
is not maintained, retained, or available to verify Concessionaire's actual Gross Sales or
any other matter the determination of which is relevant to this Agreement,
Concessionaire shall pay for the cost of such visit, and in addition, should the Port deem
it necessary, Concessionaire shall reconstruct, at its sole cost and expense, all records
for the determination of Gross Sales or any other matter the determination of which is
relevant to this Agreement for any period being audited. If, in the Port's determination,
Concessionaire fails to reasonably reconstruct all records in accordance with this
Section, then in addition to any remedies under this Agreement or at law, the Port shall
be entitled to collect as Additional Rent an amount equal to the greater of: (i) the
difference between one hundred twenty five percent (125%) of the Minimum Annual
Guarantee for the period in question and the Percentage Fees actually paid for the period
in question, or (ii) five percent (5%) of the Percentage Fees actually paid for the period
in question.
5.9.5 If Gross Sales Are Under-Reported. If any such audit discloses that the actual Gross
Sales exceed those reported:
A. Concessionaire shall forthwith pay the Percentage Fee due along with interest at
the Default Rate; and
B. If the audit reveals a discrepancy of more than two percent (2%) of the
Percentage Rent reported in accordance with Section 5.7 above for any twelve
(12) month period, Concessionaire shall forthwith pay the cost of such audit
along with interest at the Default Rate; and
C. The Port shall have, in addition to the foregoing rights to costs and any other
rights and remedies available to the Port under this Agreement or at law, the
right to terminate this Agreement, if such audit discloses that actual Gross Sales
exceeded those reported by more than ten percent (10%).
5.9.6 If Gross Sales Are Over-Reported. If Concessionaire over-reports its Gross Sales and
is due a refund, Concessionaire will be granted a credit toward future rents after first
deducting the cost of the audit. In the event the cost of the audit exceeds the refund due,
Concessionaire shall not be responsible for the balance of the cost of the audit but shall
not be entitled to any refund/credit associated with the over-report of Gross Sales.
5.9.7 Subtenant's Records. If Concessionaire subleases, licenses, or in any manner allows
the Premises to be used by another party, Concessionaire is responsible for ensuring that
all of such party(ies) records conform to the requirements of this Agreement. The failure
of any such party to maintain its records as required under this Agreement, or correctly
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 20 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
052
report gross sales, will be deemed a failure on the part of Concessionaire to conform to
the requirements of this Agreement.
SECTION 6: METHOD OF PAYMENTS AND REPORTS
6.1 Reporting and Payment. On or before the fifteenth (15th) of a month, Concessionaire shall
submit to the Port a detailed statement showing the Gross Sales generated from the concession
during the preceding month (the "Monthly Report") and shall simultaneously pay to the Port
the Percentage Fee due for that preceding month less the monthly payment of Minimum Annual
Guarantee already paid by the Concessionaire for that month. The Monthly Report shall be filed
using the technology and procedures designated by the Port and shall show such reasonable
detail and breakdown as may be required by the Port. If the Port instructs Concessionaire to file
the Monthly Report or any other report by computer, e-mail, or internet website, the Port shall
not be obligated to furnish Concessionaire with the equipment or systems necessary to do so.
The failure to timely provide the reports required by this Section shall be grounds for the
imposition of liquidated damages as provided in Section 18.4 and Exhibit F.
6.2 Annual Reconciliation. The Percentage Fees shall be subject to annual reconciliation by the
Port at the end of each calendar year following receipt of the Annual Report. Under/over
payments of less than Forty Dollars ($40.00) shall not be subject to adjustment. In the event
that Concessionaire has underpaid the Rent by Forty Dollars ($40.00) or more, Concessionaire
shall remit the entire amount of the underpayment together with the Annual Report. In the event
Concessionaire has overpaid the Rent by Forty Dollars ($40.00) or more, the Port will issue
Concessionaire a credit that shall be utilized against future Rent payment obligations (or,
following the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement, issue Concessionaire a
refund).
6.3 Annual Report. Concessionaire shall provide the Port with a report (the "Annual Report"), due
by the deadline set forth in the Summary of Key Lease Terms, that reflects the amount of Gross
Sales for the preceding calendar year; provided, however, in the event the First Partial Year is
less than six months in duration, the Annual Report for the First Partial Year may be combined
with the Annual Report for the First Full Year. The Annual Report shall be accompanied by a
signed certificate of an independent Certified Public Accountant (CPA), Concessionaire's Chief
Financial Officer (CFO) or Chief Executive Officer (CEO) stating specifically that (a) he/she
has examined the Annual Report, (b) his/her examination included such tests of
Concessionaire's books and records as he/she considered necessary or appropriate under the
circumstances, (c) such report presents fairly the information reflected for the preceding
calendar year (or, in the case of a report combining the First Partial Year with the First Full
Year, from the period from the Rent Commencement Date until the end of the First Full Year),
(d) the information reflected conforms with and is computed in compliance with the definitions
set forth in this Agreement, and (e), if the certificate is submitted by a CPA, the standards
observed by the CPA in its audit are such that it planned and performed the audit to obtain
reasonable assurances that Concessionaire's report is free from material misstatement.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that the Port conducts an audit of Concessionaire's
operations pursuant to Section 5.9 and that audit reveals a discrepancy of more than two percent
(2%) of the Percentage Rent reported in accordance with Section 5.3 above for any twelve (12)
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 21 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
053
month period, Concessionaire's Annual Report must thereafter by accompanied by a signed
certificate of an independent Certified Public Accountant; Concessionaire's CEO and CFO may
not certify the report.
The Annual Report shall be provided in writing and/or electronic format as reasonably specified
by the Port, and in addition to such other detail as the Port may reasonably require, the Annual
Report shall breakdown Gross Sales by month, location, and product category. Any additional
or unpaid Rent or fees due for the prior calendar year shall be submitted with the Annual Report.
The failure to timely provide the report required by this Section shall be grounds for the
imposition of liquidated damages as provided in Section 18.4 and Exhibit F.
In the event that the Annual Report makes a substantial adjustment in Concessionaire's Gross
Sales for the preceding calendar year, the Port reserves the right to adjust the amount of the
Minimum Annual Guarantee established pursuant to Section 5.2. While the Port will not
generally adjust the amount of monthly payment of the Minimum Annual Guarantee unless the
adjustment in the prior year's Gross Sales is likely to result in significant over/under payment
by Concessionaire, the Port and Concessionaire will specifically take account of any adjustment
in the Minimum Annual Guarantee in connection with the annual reconciliation and
Concessionaire's submission of the Annual Report for the calendar year following the one for
which the adjustment was made.
6.4 Other Reports. In addition to any reports otherwise required under the terms of this Agreement,
Concessionaire shall provide the Port with: (i) a statement, due within thirty (30) days of any
request by the Port, of Net Book Value of Concessionaire's Leasehold Improvements (the
"NBV Report"), calculated in conformance with the rules set forth in Section 19.5; and (ii) such
other and further reports, on such frequency as the Port may reasonably require from time to
time, all without any cost to the Port. All such reports shall be provided in writing and/or
electronic format as reasonably specified by the Port from time to time. The failure to timely
provide the reports required by this Section shall be grounds for the imposition of liquidated
damages as provided in Section 18.4 and Exhibit F.
6.5 Quality Jobs and Small Business Reporting. Concessionaire shall provide the Port, upon
reasonable request, one or more reports that document Concessionaire's compliance with, and
efforts to further, the Port's quality jobs and small business initiatives. Reports relating to
quality jobs will generally encompass information about Concessionaire's employee pool, wage
rates, benefits (including time-off and Affordable Care Act compliance), and hiring practices.
Reports relating to small business will generally encompass information about Concessionaire's
inclusion of small businesses within its day-to-day operations, specifically including as
suppliers. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Port shall specifically have the
right to request a report that documents Concessionaire's compliance with any commitments
made by Concessionaire during any competitive process (whether request for proposals or
competitive evaluation process) under which Concessionaire was selected to operate a
concession at the Airport; provided, however, nothing in this Section shall require
Concessionaire to disclose as part of any report any sensitive personally identifiable information
about its individual employees.
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 22 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
054
6.6 Improvement Reports. Within one hundred twenty (120) days of the completion of the Initial
Improvements, Midterm Refurbishment, and all Alterations for which the Port's consent is
required, Concessionaire shall provide the Port with: (a) a certified statement (subject to
verification, audit and approval by the Port) specifying the total construction cost (including
architectural, engineering and permitting costs) in such detail as reasonably necessary to
ascertain the costs of all leasehold improvements, furniture, fixtures and equipment constructed
or installed by Concessionaire in the Premises; (b) a certification that the improvements have
been constructed in accordance with the approved drawings and specifications and in strict
compliance with all Legal Requirements and the Port Standards; (c) a certified proof in writing
demonstrating that no liens exist on any or all of the construction; and (d) a reproducible final
copy of the plans as-built for all improvements along with computer discs as electronic files in
a format compatible with the Port's CAD Standards Manual, to enable the Port to upgrade its
existing files to reflect the as-constructed changes made by Concessionaire. The failure to
timely provide the reports, statements and certifications required by this Section shall be
grounds for the imposition of liquidated damages as provided in Section 18.4 and Exhibit F.
SECTION 7: SECURITY DEPOSIT
7.1 Security Deposit. Concessionaire shall, prior to the Notice to Open Date, obtain and deliver to
the Port a good and sufficient corporate surety company bond, irrevocable stand-by letter of
credit, or other security in a form approved by the Port in the amount of One Million One
Hundred Eighty Thousand and 00/100 ($1,180,000.00) Dollars as referenced in the
Summary of Key Lease Terms to secure Concessionaire's full performance of this Agreement,
including the payment of all fees and other amounts now or hereafter payable to the Port
hereunder. In the event that a late charge is payable under Section 5.7 (whether or not collected)
for three (3) installments of Rent in any twelve (12) month period, the amount of the Security
shall, at the Port's election, be doubled.
The amount, form, provisions and nature of the Security, and the identity of the surety or other
obligor thereunder, shall at all times be subject to the Port's approval. The Security shall remain
in place at all times throughout the full term of this Agreement and throughout any holdover
period. If the Security is in a form that periodically requires renewal, Concessionaire must
renew the Security not less than forty-five (45) days before the Security is scheduled to expire.
No interest shall be paid on the Security and the Port shall not be required to keep the Security
separate from its other accounts. No trust relationship is created with respect to the Security.
7.2 Return of Security Deposit. The Security is a part of the consideration for execution of this
Agreement. If Concessionaire shall have fully performed all terms and conditions of this
Agreement, any cash deposit security shall be paid to Concessionaire within sixty (60) days
following the termination (or expiration) date without interest; otherwise the Port shall, in
addition to any and all other rights and remedies available under this Agreement or at law or
equity, retain title thereto.
7.3 Application of Security Deposit. The Port may apply all or part of the Security to unpaid Rent
or any other unpaid sum due hereunder, or to cure other defaults of Concessionaire. If the Port
uses any part of the Security during the term of the Agreement, Concessionaire shall restore the
Security to its then-currently required amount within fifteen (15) days after application of the
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 23 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
055
Security by the Port. The retention or application of such Security by the Port pursuant to this
Section does not constitute a limitation on or waiver of the Port's right to seek further remedy
under law or equity.
SECTION 8: MARKETING PROGRAM
8.1 Program. The Port has established a marketing program ("Program") to promote the
concessions at the Airport. The Program generally includes advertising, media placements,
special events, promotional events, social media, brochures, videos and catalogs, etc.,
promotion and monitoring as appropriate. Annually, the Port will, in consultation with
interested Airport concession tenants, develop and establish the Program's annual business
plan, objectives, evaluation methodology, and budget for the calendar year based in part on an
analysis of the effectiveness of each previous year's Program elements.
8.2 Funding. The Program will be funded by contributions from the Concessionaire and other
concessionaires at the Airport (the "Program Fund"). Concessionaire will contribute to the
Program Fund an amount up to one half of one percent (0.5%) of its monthly Gross Sales, but
no more than Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00) per concession facility, per calendar year
(pro-rated based on the number of months in the term for any partial year), to fund the Program;
provided, however, in the event the Port assesses a lower percentage rate for other in-line, nontemporary
Airport concession tenant's contribution to the Program Fund, Concessionaire's
contribution rate will automatically be adjusted to the lowest percentage rate assessed by the
Port for any Airport concession tenant. Concessionaire recognizes that certain kiosk tenants and
temporary (two years or less) locations will not be required to participate in the Program (or
may pay a lesser rate if they elect to participate), and these tenants shall not affect the rate paid
by Concessionaire. All contributions to the Program Fund may only be expended for the
promotion of concessions and marketing-related staff activities at the Airport and for no other
purposes. Concessionaire shall make its contributions to the Program Fund monthly in arrears
concurrently with its payment of the Percentage Fee under this Agreement.
8.3 Right to Discontinue. The Port reserves the right at any time to terminate the Program and
thereafter, continue to provide marketing and promotional services as described in Section 8.1
until the balance remaining in the Program Fund is exhausted.
SECTION 9: COMMON AREAS
9.1 Control of Common Areas by Port. The Port shall at all times have the exclusive control and
management of the roof, walls, parking areas, access roads, driveways, sidewalks, concourses,
loading docks, washrooms, elevators, escalators, stairways, hallways and other areas,
improvements, facilities and/or special services provided by the Port for the general use, in
common, of Airport users and tenants ("common areas and facilities"). Without limiting the
Port's right of control and management, the Port specifically reserves the right to: (i) use the
same for any purpose, including the installation of signs for directional, advertising or other
purposes, (ii) change the area, level, location and arrangement of the common areas and
facilities; (iii) provided Concessionaire is not deprived of reasonable access to its Premises,
close all or any portion of the common areas and facilities; and (iv) do and perform such other
acts in and to the common areas and facilities as the Port shall determine to be advisable with a
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 24 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
056
view to the improvement of the convenience and use thereof by the Port and tenants of the
Airport.
9.2 Common Area Maintenance. The Port shall have the right to institute and charge a monthly
maintenance fee to offset the costs of maintenance and repair of common areas (whether or not
public) from which Concessionaire and other concession tenants benefit. The specific amount
will be established based on the specific concession type and location reasonably determined
by the Port (e.g. retail, service or food & beverage). However, the Port shall have no right to
charge Concessionaire, and Concessionaire shall have no obligation to pay, such amount until
such time as not less than fifty percent (50%) of other concessions tenants, both in number and
total Gross Sales for the particular concession type and location, are subject to payment of such
amount.
9.3 License. All common areas and facilities that Concessionaire is permitted to use and occupy
are used and occupied under a revocable license. If the amount of such areas or facilities is
revised or diminished, such revision or diminution shall not be deemed a constructive or actual
eviction, and the Port shall not be subject to any liability, nor shall Concessionaire be entitled
to any compensation or reduction or abatement of Rent.
9.4 Parking. While the Port may provide parking facilities to the Concessionaire's employees in
common with employees of other tenants and users of the Airport, it retains the right to impose
a reasonable charge for the privilege of utilizing these parking facilities. The Port has no
obligation to provide parking facilities to Concessionaire's employees.
9.5 Centralized Receiving and Distribution. The Port reserves the right to develop and manage
a Centralized Receiving and Distribution Facility (CRDF) to be used by Concessionaire and
other parties receiving deliveries for the Airport terminals, which CRDF may be located at a
location off the Airport with regular deliveries to the Airport. The Port may also select a single
entity to manage receiving and deliveries and to handle product distribution within the Airport
terminals. If the Port chooses to select a delivery and distribution management entity,
Concessionaire will be required to use the CRDF and the services of such manager and pay its
respective costs of the program, at the then-current rate set forth in Seattle-Tacoma International
Airport Tariff No. 1, as the same may be revised or replaced from time-to-time. Upon
implementation of a CRDF, do direct deliveries will be allowed to Concessionaire in the Airport
terminals.
SECTION 10: IMPROVEMENTS
10.1 Improvements by the Port. The Port shall have no obligation to make any improvements to
the Premises whatsoever. It is, however, understood that the Port may from time to time elect
to alter, improve or remodel other portions of the Airport, and Concessionaire agrees that the
portion of the Premises, if any, which is visible to the general public may be altered, remodeled
or improved at the Port's expense in connection with any such work. The Port shall further have
the right, at its sole discretion, to make minor modifications to the Premises to accommodate
Airport operations, renovations, maintenance, or other work to be completed on or about the
Airport, which modifications will not generally involve the recapture or disruption of more than
fifty (50) square feet of the Premises. In the event of any such modifications, the Port will revise
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 25 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
057
the Premises through a written notice to Concessionaire rather than a formal amendment to the
Agreement. Concessionaire agrees that any inconvenience resulting from any such work or
modifications by the Port or its contractors and agents shall not be grounds for reduction of rent
or fee if the same shall not unreasonably interfere with Concessionaire's use of the Premises.
10.2 Other Alterations. Concessionaire, after completion of the Initial Improvements, may from
time to time during the term make such changes, alterations, additions, substitutions or
improvements (collectively referred to as "Alterations") to the Premises, of a non-structural
nature, as Concessionaire may reasonably consider necessary and desirable to adapt or equip
the Premises for Concessionaire's use and occupancy, provided, however, Concessionaire shall
make no Alterations (including as part of the Midterm Refurbishment) that will (a) cost in
excess of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000), (b) involve structural work or changes, or (c)
involve work or changes to the electrical, plumbing, heating, ventilation and air conditioning
systems of the Premises without the Port's prior written consent, which shall not be
unreasonably withheld or delayed.
10.3 Standards for Alterations and Improvements.
10.3.1 Requirements. The Initial Improvements, Midterm Refurbishment, and all other
Alterations shall be done at Concessionaire's sole cost and expense and at such times
and in such manner as the Port may from time to time designate. Initial Improvements,
Midterm Refurbishment, and all Alterations shall: (i) be of high quality, (ii) conform to
the design criteria approved by the Port, (iii) be of fireproof construction according to
the standards of the local rating organization, (iv) be constructed in good and
workmanlike manner, (v) be in full and complete accordance with all Legal
Requirements and Port Standards, and (vi) be performed in a manner that will not
unreasonably interfere with or disturb the Port or other tenants of the Port.
10.3.2 Permits. Before commencing the Initial Improvements, Midterm Refurbishment, or any
Alterations for which the Port's consent is required, Concessionaire shall prepare plans
and specifications and otherwise comply with the Port Standards. Except as otherwise
specifically provided in this Agreement, Concessionaire shall obtain all necessary
permits, including any discretionary permits. In the event the Port is required or has
obtained any of the necessary permits, Concessionaire will reimburse the Port for any
permit fees and associated costs in obtaining those permits.
10.3.3 Coordination. Concessionaire understands that the Airport is undergoing extensive
remodeling. At all times during construction and installation of the Initial
Improvements, the Midterm Refurbishment, any Alterations and any furniture, trade
fixtures and/or equipment by Concessionaire, Concessionaire, its agents, employees and
independent contractors shall cooperate with and coordinate activities and work with
the Port construction managers and other concessionaires at or near the Premises.
10.3.4 Liquidated Damages. The failure to complete the Initial Improvements, Midterm
Refurbishment, and any permitted Alterations in connection therewith, shall subject
Concessionaire to such Liquidated Damages as identified in Exhibit F.
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 26 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
058
10.3.5 Port Resolution 3725. Concessionaire shall comply with Port Resolution 3725,
attached hereto as Exhibit I, in connection with all Initial Improvements and Midterm
Refurbishment, and any other Alterations made by Concessionaire to the Premises.
10.4 Ownership of Alterations and Improvements. Other than those leasehold improvements
which are installed and become such a part of the Premises that they cannot be removed without
substantial injury to the Premises, said improvements shall immediately become the property
of the Port following installation, Concessionaire shall retain ownership of all furniture, trade
fixtures and equipment from time to time installed in the Premises by Concessionaire at its sole
expense (the "Removable Fixtures"). Concessionaire may remove any of the Removable
Fixtures at any time during the term and shall remove all thereof prior to the expiration of the
term. Any Removable Fixtures or other property of Concessionaire not removed at the
expiration of the term shall, at the election of the Port, become the property of the Port without
payment to Concessionaire, or be deemed abandoned and removed by the Port, at
Concessionaire's expense. Upon any removal of such property, Concessionaire shall promptly
repair all damage to the Premises caused thereby and reimburse the Port for its costs and
expenses in removing any such property not removed by Concessionaire and repairing any such
damage not repaired by Concessionaire; this covenant shall survive the termination of this
Agreement.
10.5 Visual Artists Rights Act. With respect to construction or installation of any improvements at
the Premises (whether Initial Improvements, Midterm Refurbishment, any Alterations or
otherwise) that might implicate the requirements of the federal Visual Artists Rights Act of
1990, 17 U.S.C. 106A and 113, as they may be amended from time to time ("VARA"),
Concessionaire agrees that it will not (i) hire any artist or permit any sublessee to hire any artist
for the purpose of installing or incorporating any work of art into or at the Premises, or (ii)
permit the installation or incorporation of any work of art into or at the Premises, without the
prior written approval of the Port. Concessionaire shall provide such reasonable documentation
as the Port may request in connection with any such approval, and the approval of the Port may
be conditioned upon the execution by the artist of a waiver of the provisions of the VARA, in
form and substance acceptable to the Port.
SECTION 11: MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR
11.1 Maintenance and Repair by Port. The Port shall keep and maintain the foundations, roof,
common areas and common utilities up to the point of Concessionaire's connection, and
structural portions of the exterior walls of the Premises (excepting any walls which are
installed by or on behalf of Concessionaire) in good order, condition and repair. The Port shall
perform this work at its sole cost and expense, except to the extent that any such repairs may
be required as a result of damage caused by negligence of Concessionaire or its agents,
employees, invitees or licensees, in which event the work shall be at the cost or expense of
Concessionaire. The Port shall perform such repair or maintenance work called to its attention
by Concessionaire within a reasonable period of time after receipt of such notice by
Concessionaire. There shall be no abatement or reduction of Rent, and the Port shall not be
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 27 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
059
responsible for any loss or damages to Concessionaire's business, arising by reason of the Port
making any repairs, alterations or improvements.
11.2 Maintenance and Repair by Concessionaire. Subject only to the specific obligations of the
Port set forth in Section 11.1, Concessionaire shall, at is sole cost and expense, keep the
Premises, and every part thereof and any fixtures, facilities or equipment contained therein, in
good order, condition and repair at all times. Concessionaire shall likewise comply with any
preventative maintenance practices established by the Port and listed in the Airport Dining &
Retail Preventative Maintenance Program Manual, as modified from time to time. The manual
is available for download on the Port of Seattle's website and Concessionaire is responsible to
keep a copy of the most up-to-date version of the manual. Concessionaire shall make all repairs
and replacements (ordinary as well as extraordinary, foreseen and unforeseen) which may be
necessary or required so that at all times the Premises are in good order, condition and repair.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Concessionaire shall keep the heating, air
conditioning, electrical, plumbing and sewer systems, floors, doors, security grilles, interior
walls, ceilings, window frames, glass and all portions of the storefront area in a good state of
repair. Concessionaire shall perform all maintenance, repairs, or replacements using quality
materials equal to the original, and, if materially changed from the original, shall be subject to
the prior written approval of the Port.
Concessionaire shall also keep the Premises neat, clean and in sanitary condition and follow
best practices for hygiene to keep the Premises free from infestation of pests and conditions
which might result in harborage for, or infestation of, pests. Concessionaire shall reimburse the
Port for the pest control services provided by the Port pursuant to Section 4.8 at the then-current
rate set forth in Seattle-Tacoma International Airport Tariff No. 1, as the same may be revised
or replaced from time-to-time. In the event that Concessionaire otherwise contracts for the
provision of pest control services, any such services shall be supplemental to those provided by
the Port under Section 4.8, and Concessionaire and its pest control contractor shall specifically
coordinate its services with the Port's selected Unified Pest Management Program contractor.
Concessionaire shall perform all maintenance, repairs, or replacements using quality materials
equal to the original, and, if materially changed from the original, shall be subject to the prior
written approval of the Port. In the event fixtures and/or equipment are installed in, affixed to,
or served by, roof vents or other similar air openings serving the Premises, Concessionaire shall
keep such vents and openings free from the accumulation of grease, dirt, and other foreign
matter, and shall furnish and service all filters or similar equipment considered necessary by the
Port, monthly or as often as necessary.
The failure to perform the maintenance and repair required by this Section shall be grounds for
the imposition of liquidated damages as provided in Section 18.4 and Exhibit F.
SECTION 12: UTILITIES
12.1 Utilities. Concessionaire shall be liable for and shall pay throughout the term of this Agreement,
all charges for all utility services furnished to the Premises, including, but not limited to, light,
heat, electricity, gas, water, cable television, grease interceptor, sewerage, fire protection,
recycling, garbage disposal and janitorial services. For any utility services furnished by the Port,
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 28 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
060
Concessionaire shall pay the Port for such services at the then-current rate set forth in Seattle-
Tacoma International Airport Tariff No. 1, as the same may be revised or replaced from timeto-time.
12.2 Connections and Meters. Without limiting the generality of the language set forth in Section
12.1, the following additional requirements related to utility services for the Premises shall
apply unless otherwise expressly agreed by the Port in writing:
12.3 HVAC. Concessionaire shall at its cost furnish, install and maintain any ductwork and other
connections within or leading into the Premises, and shall connect and complete the heating,
ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) from the Airport's central system. Thereafter, the Port
shall, without charge, furnish normal and reasonable quantities of central air from the central
HVAC system to the Premises and all necessary power and electricity for such central air
circulation. Subject to conditions beyond its control, the Port shall maintain under normal
conditions a temperature adequate for comfortable occupancy according to the season;
provided, that Concessionaire properly maintains the ductwork and other connections within or
leading into the Premises and complies with the recommendations of the Port regarding
reasonable occupancy and use of the Premises.
12.4 Electricity and Lighting. Concessionaire shall at its cost furnish, install and maintain an
electric meter for the Premises at a location and of a type specified by the Port. Concessionaire
shall also at its cost furnish, install and maintain all lighting fixtures and wiring for general
illumination of the Premises. Levels of illumination and wattage requirements shall be subject
to the approval of the Port.
12.5 Water, Natural Gas, and Sewerage. To the extent water or natural gas is required by
Concessionaire for its operations, Concessionaire shall at its cost furnish, install and
maintain a water and natural gas meter for the Premises at a location and of a type specified by
the Port.
12.6 Cabling and Communications. Concessionaire shall use the Port's cabling and
communications system for its operations at the Airport when such cabling and communications
system has been installed by the Port, and Concessionaire shall pay a user fee as will be
determined by the Port. In the event Concessionaire is allowed to install communication
equipment, any such installation shall be subject to the Port regulation.
12.7 Garbage and Recycling. Concessionaire shall use the garbage, composting, and recycling
system provided by the Port. Concessionaire is required to participate in all garbage and
recycling programs. This includes, but is not limited to, composting, mixed cardboard, paper,
plastic, metal, and glass recycling, bulk grease recycling and such other programs that may from
time to time be adopted by the Port.
12.8 Utility Interruptions. The Port shall have the right to shut down electrical energy to the
Premises (or portions thereof) when necessitated by safety, repairs, alterations, connections,
upgrades, relocations, reconnections, or for any other reason, with respect to the Airport's
electrical system (singularly or collectively, "Electrical Work"), regardless of whether the need
for such Electrical Work arises in respect of the Premises or elsewhere in the Airport. Whenever
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 29 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
061
possible, the Port shall give Concessionaire no less than two (2) days prior notice for such
electricity shutdown. The Port shall use all reasonable efforts to not shut down Concessionaire's
electrical energy for such Electrical Work during business hours unless such Electrical Work
shall be: (a) required because of an emergency; or (b) required by the electricity company
servicing the Airport or by any governmental or quasi-government law, rule, code, directive, or
order.
Concessionaire further acknowledges that interruptions in utility services (including, without
limitation, electrical service) are not uncommon in facilities such as the Airport, and
Concessionaire acknowledges that it will, at its cost and expense, protect any sensitive
electronic equipment which may be used in the Premises from utility service interruptions
through the use of backup power supplies, surge protectors, and other appropriate safety systems
as Concessionaire deems reasonable and necessary. Concessionaire acknowledges that it has
taken or will take all precautions it deems necessary to protect its equipment in, on and around
the Airport, including the acquisition of insurance.
The Port shall not be liable to Concessionaire for any damages or losses (including, without
limitation, indirect or consequential damages or attorneys' fees) sustained to any equipment
installed by Concessionaire or otherwise caused by any utility service shut downs, interruptions
or failures, nor shall the same constitute an eviction or disturbance of Concessionaire's use or
possession of the Premises or a breach of the Port's obligations hereunder. However, if any
utility interruption is within the control of the Port, the Port shall use reasonable efforts to restore
utility service to Concessionaire promptly. If the Port fails to use such reasonable efforts and
such interruption or failure continues for more than two (2) days, then as Concessionaire's sole
and exclusive remedy, the Minimum Annual Guarantee shall equitably abate until utility service
is resumed.
12.9 Utility Conservation. The Port shall have the right to institute such reasonable policies,
programs and measures as may be necessary or desirable, in the Port's discretion, for the
conservation and/or preservation of water, energy or energy related services, or as may be
required to comply with any applicable codes, rules and regulations, whether mandatory or
voluntary.
SECTION 13: TAXES
13.1 Payment of Taxes. Concessionaire shall be liable for, and shall pay throughout the term of this
Agreement, all license fees and all taxes payable for, or on account of, the activities conducted
on the Premises and all taxes on the property of Concessionaire on the Premises and any taxes
on the Premises and/or on the leasehold interest created by this Agreement and/or any taxes
levied in lieu of a tax on said leasehold interest and/or any taxes levied on, or measured by, the
rentals payable hereunder, whether imposed on Concessionaire or on the Port. With respect to
any such taxes payable by the Port which are on or measured by the Rent payments hereunder,
Concessionaire shall pay to the Port with each Rent payment an amount equal to the tax on, or
measured by, that particular payment. All other tax amounts for which the Port is or will be
entitled to reimbursement from Concessionaire shall be payable by Concessionaire to the Port
at least fifteen (15) days prior to the due dates of the respective tax amounts involved; provided,
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 30 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
062
that Concessionaire shall be entitled to a minimum of ten (10) days' written notice of the
amounts payable by it.
13.2 Personal Property Taxes. Concessionaire shall pay or cause to be paid, prior to delinquency,
all taxes and assessments levied upon all trade fixtures, inventories and other real or personal
property placed or installed in and upon the Premises by Concessionaire. If any such taxes on
Concessionaire's personal property or trade fixtures are levied against the Port or the Port's
property, and if the Port pays the taxes based upon such increased assessment, Concessionaire
shall, upon demand, repay to the Port the taxes so levied.
SECTION 14: INDEMNITY
14.1 The Port, its officers, employees and agents shall not be liable for any injury (including death)
to any persons or for damage to any property regardless of how such injury or damage be
caused, sustained or alleged to have been sustained by Concessionaire or by others, including
but not limited to all persons directly or indirectly employed by Concessionaire, or any agents,
contractors, subcontractors, licensees or invitees of Concessionaire, as a result of any
condition (including existing or future defects in the Premises) or occurrence (including
failure or interruption of utility service) whatsoever related in any way to Concessionaire's
use or occupancy of the Premises and adjacent areas.
14.2 To the maximum extent permitted by law, Concessionaire shall defend (with counsel approved
by the Port), fully indemnify, and hold entirely free and harmless the Port and its
Commissioners, officers, agents and employees from any and all claims, loss, damages,
expenses, attorneys' fees, consultants' fees, court costs and other costs arising, directly or
indirectly, from: (a) the condition of the Premises or out of the occupancy by the Concessionaire
or any subtenant, licensee, concessionaire, or contractor of Concessionaire; and (b) any
accident, injury, death or damage, however caused, to any person or property on or about the
Premises; and (c) any fault or negligence by Concessionaire or any subtenant, licensee,
concessionaire or contractor of the Concessionaire or of any officer, agent, or employee of any
such person; and (d) any failure on Concessionaire's part to comply with any of the covenants,
terms and conditions contained in this Agreement; provided, however, nothing herein shall
require Concessionaire to indemnify the Port from any accident, injury, death or damage arising
out of the sole negligence of the Port or its Commissioners, officers, agents and employees.
Concessionaire agrees that the foregoing indemnity specifically covers actions brought by its
own employees, and thus Concessionaire expressly waives its immunity under industrial
insurance, Title 51, as necessary to effectuate this indemnity. Such waiver shall not, however,
prevent Concessionaire from asserting such immunity against any other person or entity.
14.3 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Section 14, in the event of the concurrent
negligence of Concessionaire, its subtenants, licensees, concessionaires, contractors, or any
officer, agent, or employee of any such person on the one hand and the negligence of the Port,
its agents, employees or contractors on the other hand, which concurrent negligence results in
injury or damage to persons or property of any nature and howsoever caused, and relates to the
construction, alteration, repair, addition to, subtraction from, improvement to or maintenance
of the Premises such that RCW 4.24.115 is applicable, Concessionaire's obligation to indemnify
the Port as set forth in this Section shall be limited to the extent of Concessionaire's negligence
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 31 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
063
and that of Concessionaire's subtenants, licensees, concessionaires, contractors, and any
officers, agents, and employees of any such person, including Concessionaire's proportional
share of costs, court costs, attorneys' fees, consultants' fees and expenses incurred in connection
with any claim, action or proceeding brought with respect to such injury or damage.
14.4 CONCESSIONAIRE AND PORT ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION 14 ARE THE PRODUCT OF MUTUAL
NEGOTIATION. Concessionaire's obligations under this Section 14 shall survive the
expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement.
SECTION 15: INSURANCE
15.1 Required Policies. Concessionaire shall obtain and keep in force, at its sole cost and expense
the following types of insurance, in the amounts specified and in the form hereinafter provided
for:
15.1.1 General Liability Insurance. Concessionaire shall obtain and keep in force a
commercial general liability policy of insurance, written on ISO Form CG 00 01 10 01
(or equivalent), that protects Concessionaire and the Port, as an additional insured using
ISO Form 20 26 (either 11 85 or 07 04 revision) or equivalent, against claims for bodily
injury, personal injury and property damage based upon, involving or arising out of the
tenancy, use, occupancy or maintenance of the Premises and all areas appurtenant
thereto, and specifically including the action/inaction of any subtenant, licensee or
concessionaire. Such insurance shall be on occurrence basis providing single limit
coverage in an amount not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence.
The policy shall not contain any intra-insured exclusions as between insured persons or
organizations. The policy shall contain a minimum One Hundred Thousand Dollars
($100,000) sub-limit that covers damage to premises rented or leased to Concessionaire,
including fire damage. This limit shall be identified on the Certificate of Insurance. The
Port shall be submitted upon Agreement inception, a copy of the additional insured
endorsement, that validates the Port has been added as an additional insured. Additional
endorsements shall include one to validate the Concessionaire's insurance is primary
and non-contributory and a waiver of the transfer of the rights of recovery.
Concessionaire shall purchase coverage or add coverage by endorsement to the
commercial general liability coverage policy for any liquor, beer, or wine operations by
Concessionaire in which liquor, beer, or wine is sold, purchased, distributed, or served
on the Premises. Coverage shall be on a per occurrence bases with limits of not less
than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence and cover liability as it relates to
property injury and bodily injury. The Port of Seattle shall be an additional insured on
this policy or coverage enhancement.
15.1.2 Automobile Liability Insurance. Concessionaire shall obtain and keep in force a
commercial automobile liability policy of insurance, written on ISO Form CA 00 01 07
97 (or equivalent), that provides coverage for claims for bodily injury and property
damage based upon, involving or arising out of motor vehicle operations.
Concessionaire shall provide a Waiver of Subrogation on this policy in favor of the Port.
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 32 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
064
Such insurance shall cover any "Auto" (i.e. owned, hired and non-owned) and shall be
on an occurrence basis providing single limit coverage in an amount not less than One
Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence. The policy shall not contain any intrainsured
exclusions as between insured persons or organizations. Driving on the nonmovement
side of the airfield at STIA will require limits of Five Million Dollars
($5,000,000) per occurrence.
15.1.3 Property Insurance. Concessionaire shall obtain and keep in force property insurance
using an ISO CP 10 20 Cause of Loss Broad Form (or an equivalent manuscript form)
insuring Concessionaire's personal property and Alterations (specifically including
"betterments and improvements") made by or for Concessionaire against physical
damage, including loss of use of the Premises. The policy shall include coverage for any
additional costs resulting from debris removal and reasonable amounts of coverage for
the enforcement of any ordinance or law regulating the reconstruction or replacement
of damaged property including any undamaged sections of the Premises required to be
demolished or removed by reason of the enforcement of any Legal Requirement as the
result of a covered cause of loss. The amount of such insurance shall be procured on a
replacement cost basis (or the commercially reasonable and available insurable value
thereof if, by reason of the unique nature or age of the improvements involved, such
latter amount is less than full replacement cost). The policy shall also contain an agreed
valuation provision in lieu of any coinsurance clause. The Port of Seattle shall be
included as an Additional Insured and Loss Payee on Concessionaire's property
insurance policy with respect to the Port's interest in Alterations.
15.1.4 Other Insurance. Concessionaire shall further obtain and keep in force such other and
further insurance as the Port may from time to time reasonably request for the protection
by insurance of its interest in the Premises.
The limits of insurance specified in this Section shall be subject to periodic adjustment
to reflect changes in insuring practices for similar properties in the same geographic area
and changes in insurance products.
15.2 Insurance Policies.
15.2.1 Insurance Companies. Insurance required hereunder shall be in companies duly
licensed to transact business in the State of Washington, and maintaining during the
policy term a General Policyholders Rating of 'A-' or better and a financial rating of
'IX' or better, as set forth in the most current issue of "Best's Insurance Guide."
15.2.2 Deductibles. No insurance required herein shall contain a deductible or self-insured
retention in excess of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) without the prior
written consent of the Port.
15.2.3 Cancellation/Non-Renewal. Insurance is to remain current throughout the term of the
Agreement. The Port shall receive documentation annually to include a certificate of
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 33 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
065
insurance and any applicable endorsements to validate the insurance required herein has
been purchased and is compliant with the Agreement requirements within ten (10) days
of each insurance renewal. Should any insurance required herein be terminated,
cancelled, or not renewed, the Concessionaire will have five (5) days to obtain
replacement insurance from the date of the termination, cancellation or non-renewal
notice Concessionaire receives from their insurer(s). In the event the insurance is not
replaced within the five (5) days, the Agreement shall notwithstanding any other notice
period provided for be in Default under 18 and the Port shall have the right, under
Section 21.5, to procure such insurance as the Port considers reasonable to protect its
interests without further notice to Concessionaire.
15.2.4 Evidence of Insurance. Concessionaire shall deliver, or cause to be delivered, to the
Port, certificates of insurance, additional insured endorsements, loss payee
endorsements for property insurance, waivers of subrogation and any other
documentation or endorsement that provides evidence of the existence and amounts of
such insurance, the inclusion of the Port as an insured as required by this Agreement,
and the amounts of all deductibles and/or self-insured retentions. Upon request by the
Port, Concessionaire shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the Port, certified copies
of the policies of insurance that Concessionaire has purchased in order for the Port to
verify insurance coverage, limits, and endorsements or view any exclusions to the
Concessionaire's insurance policies.
15.2.5 Subtenants. The Port may require all subtenants, at subtenant's sole cost and expense,
to maintain additional insurance coverage, during the subtenant's occupancy of the
Premises, and Concessionaire shall cause to be delivered to the Port, certificates which
shall include but not be limited to the following: Worker's Compensation as required by
Washington State law, Comprehensive General Liability Insurance, Property Insurance,
Business Automobile Liability Insurance, Product and/or Liquor Liability Insurance.
15.2.6 No Limitation of Liability. The limits of insurance required by this Agreement or as
carried by Concessionaire shall not limit the liability of Concessionaire nor relieve
Concessionaire of any obligation hereunder.
15.3 Waiver of Subrogation. Without affecting any other rights or remedies, Concessionaire (for
itself and on behalf of anyone claiming through or under it by way of subrogation or otherwise)
hereby waives any rights it may have against the Port, its officers, agents and employees
(whether in contract or in tort) on account of any loss or damage occasioned to Concessionaire
arising out of or incident to the perils required to be insured against under this Agreement.
Accordingly, Concessionaire shall cause each insurance policy required by Section 15 to be
further endorsed to provide a waiver of subrogation in favor of the Port. The effect of such
release and waiver of the right to recover damages shall not be limited by the amount of
insurance carried or required, or by any deductibles applicable thereto.
15.4 Increase in Port's Cost of Insurance. Concessionaire shall not use the Premises in such a
manner as to increase the existing rates of insurance applicable to the buildings or structures of
which the Premises are a part. If it nevertheless does so, then, at the option of the Port, the full
amount of any resulting increase in premiums paid by the Port with respect to the buildings or
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 34 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
066
structures of which the Premises are a part, and to the extent allocable to the term of this
Agreement, may be added to the amount of Rent and shall be paid by Concessionaire to the Port
upon the monthly rental day next thereafter occurring.
SECTION 16: DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION
16.1 Duty to Repair. If the Premises or any buildings or structures of which the Premises are a part
are damaged by fire, the elements, earthquake, accident or other casualty (collectively,
"Casualty"), the Port shall, except to the extent either party has the right to terminate this
Agreement under Section 16.2, use reasonable efforts to repair and restore the Premises and/or
the buildings or structures of which the Premises are a part to substantially their former
condition to the extent permitted by then-applicable Legal Requirements; provided, however,
the Port's obligation to repair and restore shall not extend to any Initial Improvements, Midterm
Refurbishment, Alterations or any of Concessionaire's personal property, specifically including
the Removable Fixtures.
16.2 Right to Terminate. The Port may elect to terminate this Agreement in the event that the Port
in its sole judgment, concludes that the damage to the Premises or any buildings or structures
of which the Premises are a part cannot be repaired within thirty (30) days of the Casualty (with
the repair work and the preparations therefor to be done during regular working hours on regular
work days). In the event that the Port elects to terminate this Agreement, the Port shall advise
Concessionaire of that fact within thirty (30) days of the date of the Casualty and notify
Concessionaire of the date, not more than ninety (90) days after the Casualty, on which the
Agreement will terminate.
16.3 Abatement of Rent. Unless the casualty results from Concessionaire's negligence or breach of
the terms of this Agreement, the Minimum Annual Guaranty (if any) shall be abated in the same
proportion that any portion of the Premises that is rendered untenantable or inaccessible bears
to the whole thereof from the period from the date of the Casualty through the date of substantial
completion of the repairs to the Premises (or to the date of termination of the Agreement if
either party shall elect to terminate the Agreement). Percentage Fees shall not abate. The Port
shall not otherwise be liable to Concessionaire for any loss of the use of the whole or any part
of the Premises (including loss of business) and/or any inconvenience or annoyance occasioned
by the Casualty, by any damage resulting from the Casualty, or by any repair, reconstruction or
restoration.
16.4 Concessionaire's Duty to Repair. Except to the extent the Port elects to terminate this
Agreement under Section 16.2, Concessionaire shall, at is sole cost and expense, be responsible
for all repairs or restoration of any Initial Improvements, Midterm Refurbishment, Alterations
or any Removable Fixtures, which repair or restoration may be necessary as a result of any
casualty.
16.5 Waiver. Except as specifically set forth in this Agreement, Concessionaire hereby waives any
right that Concessionaire may have, under any applicable existing or future law, to terminate
this Agreement in the event of any damage to, or destruction of, the Premises or any buildings
or structures of which the Premises are a part.
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 35 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
067
SECTION 17: ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLEASE
17.1 Prohibition. Concessionaire shall not, in whole or in part, assign, sublet, license or permit
occupancy by any party other than Concessionaire of all or any part of the Premises, without
the prior written consent of the Port in each instance. Concessionaire shall at the time the
Concessionaire requests the consent of the Port, deliver to the Port such information in writing
as the Port may reasonably require respecting the proposed assignee, subtenant or licensee
including, without limitation, the name, address, nature of business, ownership, financial
responsibility and standing of such proposed assignee, subtenant or licensee together with the
proposed form of assignment, sublease or license. Within thirty (30) days after receipt of all
required information, the Port shall, in its sole discretion, elect one of the following: (i) to
consent to such proposed assignment, sublease or license, (ii) buyout Concessionaire's interest
in the Agreement as provided in Section 17.3, or (iii) disapprove the assignment, sublease or
license, setting forth the grounds for doing so.
17.1.1 As a condition for the Port's consent to any assignment, sublease or license, the Port
may require that the assignee, sublessee or licensee remit directly to the Port on a
monthly basis, all monies due to Concessionaire by said assignee, sublessee or licensee
(except with respect to excess rentals otherwise due Concessionaire pursuant to Section
17.2). In addition, a condition to the Port's consent to any assignment, sublease or
license of this Agreement or the Premises shall be the delivery to the Port of a true copy
of the fully executed instrument of assignment, sublease or license and an agreement
executed by the assignee, sublessee or licensee in form and substance satisfactory to the
Port and expressly enforceable by the Port, whereby the assignee, sublessee or licensee
assumes and agrees to be bound by the terms and provisions of this Agreement and
perform all the obligations of Concessionaire hereunder.
17.1.2 In the event of any assignment, Concessionaire and each respective assignor, waives
notice of default by the tenant in possession in the payment and performance of the Rent,
covenants and conditions of this Agreement and consents that the Port may in each and
every instance deal with the tenant in possession, grant extensions of time, waive
performance of any of the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement and
modify the same, and in general deal with the tenant then in possession without notice
to or consent of any assignor, including Concessionaire; and any extensions of time,
indulgences, dealings, modifications or waivers shall be deemed to be made with the
consent of Concessionaire and of each respective assignor.
17.1.3 Concessionaire agrees that any sublease or license will contain a provision in substance
that if there be any termination whatsoever of this Agreement or the Port should buy out
Concessionaire's interest pursuant to Section 17.3, then the subtenant or licensee, at the
request of the Port, will attorn to the Port and the sublessee or licensee, if the Port so
requests, shall continue in effect with the Port, but the Port shall be bound to the
subtenant or licensee in such circumstances only by privity of estate. The Port may, in
its sole discretion, accept or reject the attornment.
17.1.4 No assignment, subletting or license by Concessionaire shall relieve Concessionaire of
any obligation under this Agreement, including Concessionaire's obligation to pay Rent
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 36 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
068
or any other sum hereunder. Any purported assignment, subletting or license contrary
to the provisions hereof without consent shall be void. The consent by the Port to any
assignment or subletting shall not constitute a waiver of the necessity for such consent
to any subsequent assignment or subletting.
Concessionaire shall reimburse the Port in the sum of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00)
plus any reasonable professionals' fees and expenses incurred by the Port in connection
with any request by Concessionaire for consent to an assignment, subletting or license.
17.2 Excess Rental. If in connection with any assignment, sublease or license, Concessionaire
receives rent or other monetary consideration, either initially or over the term of the assignment
or sublease, in excess of the Rent called for hereunder, or in case of the sublease of a portion
of the Premises, in excess of such Rent fairly allocable to such portion, after appropriate
adjustments to account for any improvements or alterations made by Concessionaire and to
assure that all other payments called for hereunder and out-of-pocket expenditures, operating
costs or concessions incurred by Concessionaire in connection with such assignment, sublease
or license, are appropriately taken into account, Concessionaire shall pay to the Port seventyfive
percent (75%) of the excess of each such payment of rent or other consideration received
by Concessionaire after its receipt.
17.3 Buyout. Within the time provided by Section 17.1, the Port shall notify Concessionaire whether
it is interested in negotiating a buy-out of Concessionaire's interest in this Agreement. The Port
shall have no right to buy-out Concessionaire's interest in this Agreement in the event that a
proposed assignment is directly as a result of a proposed merger, acquisition or sale of
substantially all of the assets of Concessionaire. If the Port is interested in a buy-out of
Concessionaire's interest, the Port shall have sixty (60) days from the date of its notice to
Concessionaire to enter into an agreement to buy out Concessionaire's leasehold interest in this
Agreement upon substantially the same terms and conditions as proposed between
Concessionaire and the third party. The purchase price to be paid by the Port under this buy-out
right shall be the proposed transaction purchase price as set forth in the letter of intent or
proposed agreement between Concessionaire and the third party.
If the Port and Concessionaire fail to enter into a written agreement for such a purchase within
the period of time provided by Section 17.3 then the Port shall be deemed to have waived its
buy-out right. Subject to the other provisions of this Section 17, Concessionaire may then
transfer its interest in this Agreement, but only upon the same terms and conditions as reviewed
by the Port.
If the proposed terms and conditions of any transfer by Concessionaire to a third party are at
any time materially altered from the proposed terms and conditions of such sale that were
presented to and reviewed by the Port, the Port's buy-out right shall be deemed applicable to
the altered transfer terms, and the Port shall have sixty (60) days after the date it receives notice
of the material alteration to consider and enter into a written agreement for the purchase of
Concessionaire's interest in this Agreement. It is further understood that, in the event that the
Port does not exercise this buy-out right, this provision shall nevertheless be applicable to any
further or future transfer, which is subject to this provision.
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 37 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
069
17.3 Scope. The prohibition against assigning or subletting contained in this Section 17 shall be
construed to include a prohibition against any assignment or subletting by operation of law.
Furthermore, for purposes of this Section 17, any sale, transfer or other disposition in the
aggregate of fifty percent (50%) or more of the equity ownership in Concessionaire (i.e. stock
with respect to tenant corporation, partnership interests with respect to a tenant partnership, etc.)
shall be deemed an assignment. If this Agreement be assigned, or if the underlying beneficial
interest of Concessionaire is transferred, or if the Premises or any part thereof be sublet or
occupied by anybody other than Concessionaire, the Port may collect Rent from the assignee,
subtenant or occupant and apply the net amount collected to the Rent herein reserved and
apportion any excess Rent so collected in accordance with the terms of Section 17.2, but no
such assignment, subletting, occupancy or collection shall be deemed a waiver of this covenant,
or the acceptance of the assignee, subtenant or occupant as tenant, or a release of Concessionaire
from the further performance by Concessionaire of covenants on the part of Concessionaire
herein contained. No assignment or subletting shall affect the continuing primary liability of
Concessionaire (which, following assignment, shall be joint and several with the assignee), and
Concessionaire shall not be released from performing any of the terms, covenants and
conditions of this Agreement.
17.4 Concessionaire's Responsibility for Subtenants. In the event that Concessionaire subleases
any portion of the Premises, Concessionaire shall be responsible for managing all of its
subtenants and for ensuring that all its subtenants adhere to the terms of this Agreement.
Concessionaire is responsible for ensuring all of its subtenants adhere to proper cash-handling
techniques, including without limitation any point-of-sale system and cash-handling criteria
required by the Port hereunder. If a subtenant fails to open its unit or goes out of business,
Concessionaire is responsible to put up appropriate temporary storefront barriers, curtains,
display boxes or signage as directed by the Port. And if Concessionaire fails to comply with
this paragraph in the time period specified by the Port, Operator agrees to pay the Port liquidated
damages as provided in Section 18.4 and Exhibit F until such temporary installation is complete.
Concessionaire is responsible for terminating any sublease and/or license with subtenants,
locking out a subtenant (if legally permissible), instituting suit for rent or for use or occupancy
or proceedings for recovery of possession when (a) subtenant defaults; or (b) Concessionaire is
entitled to terminate the subtenant's sublease and/or license. All legal expenses incurred in
bringing such action are Concessionaire's sole responsibility. The Port agrees not to terminate
this Agreement under 18 if the event of default is a result of an action or omission of a subtenant
if and only if; (i) after notification to the Port, Concessionaire has taken or is taking all legally
permissible corrective action, including initiation of termination actions with respect to its
sublease/subcontract with the defaulting subtenant; and (ii) Concessionaire has made the Port
financially whole.
SECTION 18: DEFAULT
18.1 Defaults. The occurrence of any one or more of the following events constitutes a default of
this Agreement by Concessionaire with or without notice from the Port:
18.1.1 The vacating or abandonment of the Premises by Concessionaire.
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 38 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
070
18.1.2 The failure by Concessionaire to make any payment of Rent, or any other payment
required by this Agreement, when due.
18.1.3 The failure by Concessionaire to observe or perform any covenant, condition, or
agreement to be observed or performed by Concessionaire in this Agreement.
18.1.4 The discovery by the Port that any required report, financial statement or background
statement provided to the Port by Concessionaire, any successor, grantee, or assignee
was materially false.
18.1.5 The filing by Concessionaire of a petition in bankruptcy, Concessionaire being adjudged
bankrupt or insolvent by any court, a receiver of the property of Concessionaire being
appointed in any proceeding brought by or against Concessionaire, Concessionaire
making an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or any proceeding being commenced
to foreclose any mortgage or other lien on Concessionaire's interest in the Premises or
on any personal property kept or maintained on the Premises by Concessionaire.
18.2 Remedies. Whenever any default (other than a default under Section 18.1.5 above, upon which
termination of this Agreement shall, at the Port's option, be effective immediately without
further notice) continues un-remedied, in whole or in part, for: (i) ten (10) days after written
notice is provided by the Port to Concessionaire in the case of default for failure to pay any
Rent, or other required payment when due, or (ii) thirty (30) days after written notice is provided
by the Port to Concessionaire for any non-monetary default, this Agreement and all of
Concessionaire's rights under it will automatically terminate if the written notice of default so
provides. Upon termination, the Port may reenter the Premises using such force as may be
necessary and remove all persons and property from the Premises. The Port will be entitled to
recover from Concessionaire all unpaid Rent or other payments and damages incurred because
of Concessionaire's default including, but not limited to, the costs of re-letting, including tenant
improvements, necessary renovations or repairs, advertising, leasing commissions, and
attorney's fees and costs ("Termination Damages"), together with interest on all Termination
Damages at the Default Rates from the date such Termination Damages are incurred by the Port
until paid.
In addition to Termination Damages, and notwithstanding termination and reentry,
Concessionaire's liability for all Rent or other charges which, but for termination of the
Agreement, would have become due over the remainder of the Agreement term ("Future
Charges") will not be extinguished and Concessionaire agrees that the Port will be entitled,
upon termination for default, to collect as additional damages, a Rental Deficiency. "Rental
Deficiency" means, at the Port's election, either:
An amount equal to Future Charges, less the amount of actual rent and concession fees, if any,
which the Port receives during the remainder of the Agreement term from others to whom the
Premises may be rented, in which case such Rental Deficiency will be computed and payable
at the Port's option either:
18.2.1 In an accelerated lump-sum payment discounted to present value; or
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 39 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
071
18.2.2 In monthly installments, in advance, on the first day of each calendar month following
termination of the Agreement and continuing until the date on which the Agreement
term would have expired but for such termination, and any suit or action brought to
collect any portion of Rental Deficiency attributable to any particular month or months,
shall not in any manner prejudice the Port's right to collect any portion of Rental
Deficiency by a similar proceeding; or
18.2.3 An amount equal to Future Charges less the aggregate fair rental value of the Premises
over the remaining Agreement term, reduced to present worth. In this case, the Rental
Deficiency must be paid to the Port in one lump sum, on demand, and will bear interest
at the Default Rate until paid. For purposes of this subparagraph, "present worth" is
computed by applying a discount rate equal to one percentage point above the discount
rate then in effect at the Federal Reserve Bank in, or closest to, Seattle, Washington.
18.3 Termination For Default by Concessionaire. If this Agreement is terminated for default as
provided in this Agreement, the Port shall use reasonable efforts to re-let the Premises in whole
or in part, alone or together with other premises, for such term or terms (which may be greater
or less than the period which otherwise would have constituted the balance of the Agreement
term), for such use or uses and, otherwise on such terms and conditions as the Port, in its sole
discretion, may determine, but the Port will not be liable for, nor will Concessionaire's
obligations under this Agreement be diminished by reason for any failure by the Port to re-let
the Premises or any failures by the Port to collect any rent due upon such re-letting.
In addition to the rights granted by Section 10.4, if upon any reentry permitted under this
Agreement, there remains any personal property upon the Premises, the Port, in its sole
discretion, may remove and store the personal property for the account and at the expense of
Concessionaire. In the event the Port chooses to remove and store such property, it shall take
reasonable steps to notify Concessionaire of the Port's action. All risks associated with removal
and storage shall be on Concessionaire. Concessionaire shall reimburse the Port for all expenses
incurred in connection with removal and storage as a condition to regaining possession of the
personal property. The Port has the right to sell any property that has been stored for a period
of thirty (30) days or more, unless Concessionaire has tendered reimbursement to the Port for
all expenses incurred in removal and storage. The proceeds of sale will be applied first to the
costs of sale (including reasonable attorneys fees), second to the payment of storage charges,
and third to the payment of any other amounts which may then be due and owing from
Concessionaire to the Port. The balance of sale proceeds, if any, will then be paid to
Concessionaire.
If the Port elects to terminate this Agreement, it will in no way prejudice the right of action for
Rents arrearages owed by Concessionaire.
18.4 Liquidated Damages. This Agreement provides for the imposition of liquidated damages in a
variety of circumstances, specifically include the Delay Damages and the schedule of liquated
damages set forth on Exhibit F. The following provisions shall apply to any such amounts.
18.4.1 Noncompliance. The Port's ADR Manager or the ADR Manager's authorized
representative shall have the right to make reasonable objections to Concessionaire's
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 40 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
072
failure to create and maintain a vibrant first-class concession at the Airport in accordance
with all of the terms of this Agreement, including, without limitation, the standards set
forth in Section 4.3 (and any requirement or standard imposed by any Exhibit to this
Agreement) (collectively, the "Operating Standards") and to operate its business in a
manner satisfactory to the ADR Manager or the ADR Manager's authorized
representative. Concessionaire agrees to promptly discontinue or remedy any
objectionable practice or condition within the cure period stated in any written notice
issued by the ADR Manager or the ADR Manager's authorized representative. "ADR
Manager" shall mean the Airport's Senior Manager, Airport Dining and Retail, or the
ADR Manager's successor in function.
18.4.2 Reasonable Forecast of Harm to Port. Concessionaire's failure to adhere to the
Agreement (specifically including any requirement imposed by any Exhibit) is
reasonably anticipated to result in inconvenience to the public, adverse effects on the
overall business of the Airport, a reduction in the amount of Rent to be paid to the Port,
and a significant expenditure of Port resources to address the failure. The parties agree
that the damages sustained by the Port for violations of the provisions of the Agreement
and these Port Standards will be difficult to determine and track. Therefore, the parties
agree that the amounts set forth in the Agreement and its exhibits are reasonable
estimates of the damages anticipated to be suffered or incurred by the Port.
18.4.3 Notice and Opportunity to Cure. The Port may assess liquidated damages
immediately, and without opportunity to cure, for the Delay Damages and for violations
pertaining to (i) minimum hours of operation, (ii) failure to remove a product deemed
objectionable by the Port within the time provided for removal, (iii) fire safety, (iv)
health and human safety, and (v) for any other violation if the Port has previously
provided Concessionaire notice of such violation two or more times in the past twelve
months (whether or not liquidated damages were actually imposed). For any other
violation, the Port will not assess liquidated damages unless the violation continues for
more than three (3) days following written notice thereof. If the violation is such that it
cannot reasonably be corrected within three days, the Port will refrain from imposing
liquidated damages so long as Concessionaire shall, within the three days, commence
the correction, identify the timeframe reasonably necessary to complete the correction
and, thereafter, diligently proceed to complete the correction within the stated
timeframe.
18.4.4 Failure to Cure. The failure to promptly address or cure any violation for which
liquidated damages are payable may, itself, also be cause for continued assessment of
liquidated damages.
18.4.5 Payment. Concessionaire shall pay all liquidated damages within thirty (30) days of the
imposition thereof. The failure to pay liquidated damages shall represent a separate
default under this Agreement.
18.4.6 No Waiver; No Obligation. The Port's failure to impose sanctions for any violation
shall not waive any right, or prohibit the Port from doing so for subsequent violations.
The Port shall have no obligation, whether to Concessionaire or any third party, to
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 41 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
073
impose fines on or otherwise take action against any party at the Airport for violation of
the Agreement or any Operating Standards.
18.4.7 Other Fines. Other fines and liquidated damages amounts may be set forth in the Port
Standards, and nothing in this Agreement is intended to limit the ability of the Port to
impose those fines and amounts as specifically provided by the Port Standards.
18.5 Remedies Cumulative. All rights, options and remedies of the Port contained in this Agreement
shall be construed and held to be distinct, separate and cumulative, and no one of them shall be
exclusive of the other, and the Port shall have the right to pursue any one or all of such remedies
or any other remedy or relief which may be provided by law or in equity, whether or not stated
in this Agreement. Furthermore, payment of any liquidated damages amount shall not relieve
Concessionaire of its responsibility for physical damage, personal injury, or any other harm
caused by Concessionaire, its employees, agents, contractors, tenants and licensees.
Concessionaire may, in its discretion, assess a subtenant or other licensee for any fines imposed
with respect to that subtenant's or licensee's unit.
SECTION 19: RELOCATION OR TERMINATION OTHER THAN FOR DEFAULT
19.1 Relocation for Performance. In the event that Concessionaire either (a) experiences a decrease
in its sales per Enplaned Passenger of more than twenty percent (20%) for the Premises, or any
discrete portion thereof, for two (2) quarters in any twelve (12)-month period, (b) loses the
franchise rights under which the concession for the Premises, or any discrete portion thereof,
was operated, or (c) experiences a decline in Gross Sales for the Premises, or any discrete
portion thereof, for two (2) consecutive years without a corresponding decrease in the number
of Enplaned Passengers for the same two-year period, the Port may initiate a discussion with
Concessionaire about termination of this Agreement or the discrete portion of the Premises to
which such issue pertains. If the parties mutually agree, then a termination agreement shall be
executed under which the Port shall agree to remarket the space and the Concessionaire shall
agree to terminate the lease and vacate the space if and when a new tenant lease for the space is
executed and the new tenant design for the space is approved by the Port.
19.2 Airport Operational Needs. If at any time (whether before or after Concessionaire commences
operations at the Premises) the Port determines that the Premises (or any portion thereof) are
necessary for the operation, safety, security or convenience of the Airport, the Port may require
Concessionaire to close, reduce or relocate (to a location designated by the Port) the Premises,
or any discrete portion thereof. In such event, the Port shall provide Concessionaire at least sixty
(60) days advance written notice. Concessionaire shall have the right to accept or reject any
proposed reduction or relocation of the Premises. If accepted, the Port and Concessionaire shall
negotiate, in good faith, for the payment of any costs associated with such change. If
Concessionaire rejects the reduction/relocation, or if the parties are unable to reach agreement
regarding the payment of costs associated with such change, the Port may, at the Port's election,
terminate this Agreement. If Concessionaire is not in default under any of the provisions of this
Agreement on the effective date of termination, the Port shall refund any Rent prepaid by
Concessionaire, to the extent allocable to any period subsequent to the effective date of the
termination and, as applicable, reimburse Concessionaire the Net Book Value of Leasehold
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 42 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
074
Improvements. Concessionaire shall not be entitled to any compensation at termination for the
bargained-for value of the leasehold or any relocation expenses.
19.3 Condemnation. In the event that any federal, state or local government or any agency or
instrumentality thereof shall, by condemnation or otherwise, take title, possession or the right
to possession of all or a portion of the Premises, the Port may, at its option, terminate this
Agreement as of the date of such taking, and if Concessionaire is not in default under any of the
provisions of this Agreement on the effective date of termination, the Port shall refund any Rent
prepaid by Concessionaire, to the extent allocable to any period subsequent to the effective date
of the termination. In addition, Concessionaire shall be entitled to participate in any
compensation paid in the event of a taking, not to exceed the Net Book Value of Leasehold
Improvements. Concessionaire shall not be entitled to any compensation at termination for the
bargained-for value of the leasehold or any relocation expenses, except to the extent such
relocation expenses may be awarded to Concessionaire as part of any condemnation proceeding.
19.4 Court Decree. In the event that any court having jurisdiction in the matter renders a decision
which has become final and which will prevent the performance by the Port of any of its
obligations under this Agreement, then either party may terminate this Agreement by ten (10)
days' written notice, and all rights and obligations of this Agreement (except for any
undischarged rights and obligations that accrued prior to the effective date of termination) shall
terminate. If Concessionaire is not in default of this Agreement on the effective date of
termination, the Port shall refund any Rent prepaid by Concessionaire, to the extent allocable
to any period subsequent to the effective date of the termination, and reimburse Concessionaire
the Net Book Value of Leasehold Improvements. Concessionaire shall not be entitled to any
compensation at termination for the bargained-for value of the leasehold or any relocation
expenses.
19.5 Net Book Value of Leasehold Improvements. As used in this Agreement, "Net Book Value
of Leasehold Improvements" shall mean the dollar amount generated through application of the
following rules:
19.5.1 Eligible Improvements. "Eligible Improvements" shall mean any permanently affixed
alterations or improvements made to the Premises and to cabinetry and display fixtures
that were custom designed by Concessionaire for the Premises and have no practical use
or value outside the Premises: (a) for which the Port's consent has been sought and
obtained in writing, (b) for which any and all information required by Section 6.6 or
any Port consent has been timely submitted, and (c) consistently appearing on any NBV
Report requested by the Port pursuant to Section 6.4, and (d) then currently in use and
in such condition as would warrant its continued use. Eligible Improvements shall,
however, specifically exclude the Removable Fixtures (other than custom designed
cabinetry and display fixtures set forth above) and any inventory maintained by
Concessionaire.
19.5.2 Cost of Eligible Improvements. The "Costs of Eligible Improvements" shall mean the
direct costs expended by Concessionaire for any Eligible Improvements, including the
cost for the demolition of any existing improvements necessary for the installation of
such Eligible Improvements. The Costs of Eligible Improvements shall not, however,
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 43 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
075
include any of the Excluded Costs. The Costs of Eligible Improvements" shall be
determined from the information timely submitted by Concessionaire pursuant to
Section 6.6 or any Port consent, subject to verification by the Port. "Excluded Costs"
shall mean the (i) financing costs; (ii) interest; (iii) inventory; (iv) office equipment and
furnishings; (v) pre-opening expenses; (vi) intra-Concessionaire charges related to
construction; (vii) professional fees and costs related to design and engineering of
Eligible Improvements in excess of twelve percent (12%) of the initial minimum
investment; and (viii) professional fees and costs related to the design and engineering
of Leasehold Improvements in excess of twelve percent (12%) of the minimum midterm
refurbishment.
19.5.3 Calculation of Net Book Value of Leasehold Improvements. For each Eligible
Improvement that does not become the Port's property under Section 10.4, the Cost of
that Eligible Improvement shall be amortized over the useful economic life of such
Eligible Improvement. The useful economic life shall in no instance exceed the period
of time commencing on the date such Eligible Improvement is installed and terminating
on the expiration of this Agreement, or any lesser period that may be specified in any
consent, sublease or other writing, on a straight-line basis with no salvage value. The
"Net Book Value of Leasehold Improvements" shall be the sum of the unamortized
portion (as of the effective date of the applicable termination) of the Cost of Eligible
Improvements for each Eligible Improvement directly affected by such deletion or
termination. As used in this Section, "useful economic life" shall specifically be
determined with respect to the initial investment in the Eligible Improvement,
Concessionaire's repair and maintenance of the Eligible Improvement, and
Concessionaire's custom and usage for assets similar to the Eligible Improvements, both
at the Airport and elsewhere.
SECTION 20: ACCESS; EASEMENTS
20.1 Access to Premises. The Port may, at any time, enter upon the Premises to ascertain the
condition of the Premises or whether Concessionaire is observing and performing its obligations
under this Agreement, all without hindrance or molestation from the Concessionaire. The Port
shall also have the right to enter the Premises for the purpose of making or performing any
necessary maintenance and repair work, for providing pest control services, for performing any
work that may be necessary by reason of Concessionaire's failure to make any such repairs or
perform any such work, or for any other reasonable purpose. The above-mentioned rights of
entry shall be exercisable upon request made on reasonable advance oral or written notice to
Concessionaire (except that no notice shall be required in the event of an emergency) or an
authorized employee of Concessionaire at the Premises.
20.2 Easements. The Port hereby reserves such continuous access and utilities easements within the
Premises, as may in the opinion of the Port from time to time are desirable for the purpose of
enabling it to exercise any right or reservation or to perform any obligation contained in this
Agreement or in connection with the Port's ownership or operation of the Airport. If the Port
exercises this reservation of easement in any manner which substantially and negatively impacts
Concessionaire, the Port agrees to negotiate an equitable adjustment in the Rent, or to bear
reasonable costs of any permanent modifications to the Premises necessary to permit
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 44 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
076
Concessionaire to continue to operate its business. In no event, however, shall the Port be
responsible for any reduced efficiency or loss of business.
SECTION 21: NONWAIVER; RIGHT TO PERFORM
21.1 Receipt of Monies Following Termination. No receipt of monies by the Port from
Concessionaire after the termination or cancellation of this Agreement in any lawful manner
shall (i) reinstate, continue or extend the term of this Agreement; (ii) affect any notice
previously given to Concessionaire; (iii) operate as a waiver of the rights of the Port to enforce
the payment of any Rent and fees then due or falling due later; or (iv) operate as a waiver of the
right of the Port to recover possession of the Premises by proper suit, action, proceeding or
remedy; it being agreed that after the service of notice to terminate or cancel this Agreement,
or after the commencement of suit, action or summary proceedings, or any other remedy, or
after a final order or judgment for the possession of the Premises, the Port may demand, receive
and collect any monies due, or falling due later, without in any manner affecting such notice,
proceeding, suit, action or judgment; and any such monies collected shall be deemed to be
payments on account of the use and occupation and/or Concessionaire's liability under this
Agreement.
21.2 No Waiver of Breach. The failure of the Port to insist in any one or more instances, upon a
strict performance of any of the covenants of this Agreement, or to exercise any option, shall
not be construed as a waiver of or relinquishment for the future of the performance of such
covenant, or the right to exercise such option, but the covenant and option shall remain in full
force and effect. The receipt by the Port of the Rent or fees, with knowledge of the breach of
any covenant hereof, shall not be deemed a waiver of such breach, and no waiver by the Port of
any provision hereof shall be deemed to have been made unless expressed in writing and signed
by the Port. The consent or approval of the Port to or of any act by Concessionaire requiring the
Port's consent or approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary the Port's
consent or approval to or of any subsequent similar acts by Concessionaire.
21.3 No Waiver of Rent. The receipt by the Port of any installment of Rent or of any amount shall
not be a waiver of any Rent or other amount then due.
21.4 Application of Payments. The Port shall have the right to apply any payments made by
Concessionaire to the satisfaction of any debt or obligation of Concessionaire to the Port, in the
Port's sole discretion and regardless of the instructions of Concessionaire as to application of
any such sum, whether such instructions be endorsed upon Concessionaire's check or otherwise,
unless otherwise agreed upon by both parties in writing. The acceptance by the Port of payments
by other parties shall in no way affect Concessionaire's liability hereunder nor shall it be
deemed an approval of any assignment of this Agreement or subletting by Concessionaire.
21.5 Port's Right to Perform. Upon Concessionaire's failure to perform any obligation or make
any payment required of Concessionaire under the Agreement, the Port shall have the right (but
not the obligation) to perform such obligation on behalf of Concessionaire and/or to make
payment on behalf of Concessionaire. Concessionaire shall reimburse the Port the reasonable
cost of the Port's performing such obligation on Concessionaire's behalf, including
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 45 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
077
reimbursement of any amounts that may be expended by the Port, plus interest at the Default
Rate.
SECTION 22: SURRENDER
22.1 Surrender. At the expiration or sooner termination of this Agreement, Concessionaire shall
promptly surrender possession of the Premises to the Port broom-clean, in their improved
condition, wear and tear consistent with Section 11.2 excepted, remove all its Removable
Fixtures and other property, and shall deliver to the Port all keys that it may have to any parts
of the Premises. If the Premises are not surrendered as provided in this Section, Concessionaire
shall indemnify and hold the Port harmless against loss or liability resulting from the delay by
Concessionaire in so surrendering the Premises, including, without limitation, any claims made
by any succeeding occupant founded on such delay.
22.2 Removal of Wires. Within ten (10) days following the expiration or earlier termination of this
Agreement, the Port may elect by written notice to Concessionaire to either:
22.2.1 Retain, without necessity of payment, any or all wiring, cables, conduit, risers and similar
installations installed by Concessionaire ("Wiring"), whether in the Premises or the
larger building of which the Premises are a part. In the event that the Port elects to retain
the wiring, Concessionaire covenants that: (i) it is the sole owner of the assets transferred
or passing to the Port, (ii) it shall have right to surrender the assets transferred or passing
to the Port, (iii) the Wiring transferred or passing to the Port are free from all liens and
encumbrances, (iv) the Wiring transferred or passing to the Port is in good condition,
working order, in safe condition and comply with the requirements of this Agreement,
and (v) that all wiring or cables included within the Wiring transferred or passing to the
Port is properly labeled at each end, in each telecommunications/electrical closet and
junction box, and otherwise as may be required by Port regulations. OR
22.2.2 Remove, or require Concessionaire to remove, all such Wiring and restore the Premises
and any larger property of which the Premises are a part to their condition existing prior
to the installation of the Wiring, all at Concessionaire's sole cost and expense.
This Section shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement.
SECTION 23: AIRPORT SECURITY
23.1 Airport Security. Concessionaire covenants that it will, at all times, maintain the integrity of
the Airport Security Plan and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Regulations
currently in effect or as may be implemented or modified from time to time, and that it will
always maintain the security of the Airport and/or any access which Concessionaire maintains.
Concessionaire also hereby agrees that it shall also be responsible for any and all actions of its
employees, subcontractors, suppliers, agents, and/or representatives, and shall provide any and
all necessary escorts as outlined in the Airports Security Plan, at all times. Concessionaire
covenants that is will always maintain the security of any airfield access which Concessionaire
maintains. Should Concessionaire allow unauthorized access to the Airport Operations or
Security Area, and/or should the Port be cited for a civil penalty, Concessionaire agrees to
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 46 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
078
reimburse Port form any monetary civil penalty which may be imposed by the Federal Aviation
Administration, the TSA, or any appropriate agency.
23.2 Airport Security Program. Concessionaire shall be responsible for obtaining and
coordinating any TSA required and Port administered criminal history record checks, security
threat assessments, badging, and/or other activities required to ensure Concessionaire is in
compliance with Port Rules and Regulations and TSA Regulations 49 CFR Parts 1500, 1520,
1540, 1542, 1544, 1546, 1548, and 1550, as promulgated, and the terms and conditions of this
Agreement.
23.3 Background Checks. Concessionaire shall be responsible for the proper preliminary
background checks for its employees, vendors, etc., for which it requests and/or obtains an
Airport Security badge. Such checks include those in support of TSA required criminal history
record checks, and security threat assessments. In the event Concessionaire fails in its
responsibilities for proper certifications, background checks or to return such Airport-issued
badges upon cessation of employment or other circumstances, as described in Section 23.6,
and/or any cause of action that either singularly or collectively would require the Port to be in
violation of TSA Regulations, Port-TSA approved Airport Security Program, and applicable
Part 1543 security directives, Concessionaire shall bear the tot cost of such TSA-issued
monetary civil penalties and/or the re-badging process.
23.4 Security Regulations. Concessionaire covenants that it will at all times preserve the integrity
of the Airport's Security program and TSA Regulations 49CFR Part 1500, 1520, 1540, 1542,
1544, 1546, 1548, and 1550, as promulgated, and that it will always preserve the security of any
Secure Areas/SIDA access which the Concessionaire maintains. Concessionaire agrees that it
shall be responsible for any and all actions of its employees, subcontractors, suppliers, agents,
and/or representatives and shall provide any and all escorts as outlined in the Airport's Security
Program, at all times. Concessionaire agrees that it shall be responsible for its employees,
subcontractors, suppliers, agents, and/or representatives shall adhere to all Airport and TSA
security policies, procedures and rules.
23.5 Compliance. Should Concessionaire, its employees, subcontractors, suppliers, agents, and/or
representatives cause any TSA Letter-of-Investigation (LOI) or TSA monetary civil penalty to
be assessed against the Port, Concessionaire agrees to reimburse the Port for all costs which
may be imposed by TSA. Concessionaire may have badge/access privileges immediately
suspended and/or revoked by the Aviation Managing Director or designee for failure to adhere
to the Airport Security Program or for failure to return all badges within the timeframes
specified herein. In the event of a severe incident, such actions may also result in the immediate
suspension and/or termination of this Agreement, at the sole discretion of the Aviation
Managing Director.
23.6 Badging. In accordance with the Airport Security Program, Concessionaire must obtain Airport
security badging and fingerprinting for its eligible employees, subcontractors, suppliers, agents,
and/or representatives, and pay any and all related costs associated with this privilege. Note at
the sole discretion of the Aviation Managing Director or designee, the rates may be subject to
change. Said badges will only be valid for the term of this Agreement and must be returned to
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 47 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
079
the Credential Center Office within twenty-four (24) hours or the next business day after
expiration or suspension and/or termination of this Agreement. Concessionaire is responsible
to return the badges of employees and representatives that are no longer employees by
Concessionaire. Concessionaire agrees to pay any associated fees and/or penalties for all
badges not returned within this time frame. Concessionaire will be required to comply with all
security requirements currently in effect or as may be implemented from time to time, including
but not limited to background checks for each badge requested.
Concessionaire will be required to have each employee continuously display any issued Airport
security badge while on Airport property. Failure to do so may result in the immediate
suspension and/or termination of badge access and this Agreement.
If the badge holder's Airport access is deactivated due to badge expiration, termination,
suspension and/or other cessation of employment and/or termination of this Agreement, or such
other terms as may be designated by the Aviation Managing Director or designee,
Concessionaire must immediately report such information to the Port. Concessionaire is
responsible for ensuring all Airport-issued badges are returned to the Port for any circumstances
as described above.
Concessionaire will have some or all badge/access privileges immediately suspended and/or
revokes as appropriate in the sole discretion of the Director Aviation Security for failure to
adhere to the Airport Security Plan or for failure to return all badges within the time frames
specified herein, and issue Liquidated Damages as provided in Section. Such actions may result
in the immediate termination of this Agreement, at the sole discretion of the Port.
SECTION 24: ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS
24.1 Definitions. "Law" or "Regulation" as used in this Agreement shall mean any environmentally
related local, state or federal law, regulation, ordinance or order (including without limitation
any final order of any court of competent jurisdiction), now or hereafter in effect. "Hazardous
Substances" as used in this Agreement shall mean any substance or material defined or
designated as a hazardous waste, toxic substance, or other pollutant or contaminant, by any Law
or Regulation.
24.2 Hazardous Substances. Concessionaire shall not allow the presence in or about the Premises
of any Hazardous Substance in any manner that could be a detriment to the Premises or in
violation of any Law or Regulation. Concessionaire shall not allow any Hazardous Substances
to migrate off the Premises, or the release of any Hazardous Substances into adjacent surface
waters, soils, underground waters or air. Upon request from the Port, Concessionaire shall
provide the Port with Concessionaire's USEPA Waste Generator Number, and with copies of
all Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) or Generator Annual Dangerous Waste Reports/
Concessionaire shall provide the Port with all environmentally related regulatory permits or
approvals (including revisions or renewals) and any correspondence Concessionaire receives
from, or provides to, any governmental unit or agency in connection with Concessionaire's
handling of Hazardous Substances or the presence, or possible presence, of any Hazardous
Substance on the Premises.
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 48 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
080
24.3 Violation of Environmental Law. If Concessionaire, or the Premises, is in violation of any
Law or Regulation concerning the presence or use of Hazardous Substances or the handling or
storing of hazardous wastes, Concessionaire shall promptly take such action as is necessary to
mitigate and correct the violation. If Concessionaire does not act in a prudent and prompt
manner, the Port reserves the right, but not the obligation, to come onto the Premises, to act in
place of the Concessionaire (Concessionaire hereby appoints the Port as its agent for such
purposes) and to take such action as the Port deems necessary to ensure compliance or to
mitigate the violation. If the Port has a reasonable belief that Concessionaire is in violation of
any Law or Regulation, or that Concessionaire's actions or inactions present a threat of violation
or a threat of damage to the Premises, the Port reserves the right to enter onto the Premises and
take such corrective or mitigating action as the Port deems necessary. All costs and expenses
incurred by the Port in connection with any such actions shall become immediately due and
payable by Concessionaire upon presentation of an invoice therefor.
24.4 Inspection; Test Results. The Port shall have access to the Premises to conduct an annual
environmental inspection. In addition, Concessionaire shall permit the Port access to the
Premises at any time upon reasonable notice for the purpose of conducting environmental
testing at the Port's expense. Concessionaire shall not conduct or permit others to conduct
environmental testing on the Premises without first obtaining the Port's written consent.
Concessionaire shall promptly inform the Port of the existence of any environmental study,
evaluation, investigation or results of any environmental testing conducted on the Premises
whenever the same becomes known to Concessionaire, and Concessionaire shall provide copies
to the Port.
24.5 Removal of Hazardous Substances. Prior to vacation of the Premises, in addition to all other
requirements under this Agreement, Concessionaire shall remove any Hazardous Substances
placed on the Premises during the term of this Agreement or Concessionaire's possession of the
Premises, and shall demonstrate such removal to the Port's satisfaction. This removal and
demonstration shall be a condition precedent to the Port's payment of any Security to
Concessionaire upon termination or expiration of this Agreement.
24.6 Remedies Not Exclusive. No remedy provided under this Agreement shall be deemed
exclusive. In addition to any remedy provided above, the Port shall be entitled to full
reimbursement from Concessionaire whenever the Port incurs any costs resulting from
Concessionaire's use or management of Hazardous Substances on the Premises, including but
not limited to, costs of clean-up or other remedial activities, fines or penalties assessed directly
against the Port, injuries to third persons or other properties, and loss of revenues resulting from
an inability to re-lease or market the property due to its environmental condition (even if such
loss of revenue occurs after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement).
24.7 Environmental Indemnity. In addition to all other indemnities provided in this Agreement,
Concessionaire agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the Port free and harmless from any and
all claims, causes of action, regulatory demands, liabilities, fines, penalties, losses, and
expenses, including without limitation cleanup or other remedial costs (and including attorneys'
fees, costs and all other reasonable litigation expenses when incurred and whether incurred in
defense of actual litigation or in reasonable anticipation of litigation), arising from the existence
or discovery of any Hazardous Substance on the Premises, or the migration of any Hazardous
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 49 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
081
Substance from the Premises to other properties or into the surrounding environment, whether
(1) made, commenced or incurred during the term of this Agreement, or (2) made, commenced
or incurred after the expiration or termination of this Agreement if arising out of events
occurring during the term of this Agreement.
SECTION 25: ACDBE REQUIREMENTS; NON-DISCRIMINATION
25.1 Airport Concessions Disadvantaged Business Enterprises. It is the policy of the Port to
support participation of Airport Concessions Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (ACDBE), as
defined in 49 CFR, Part 23, in concession activities at the Airport. To the extent Concessionaire
is required to operate the Premises as an ACDBE, Concessionaire agrees to submit to the Port,
upon execution of this Agreement, certification from the State of Washington that
Concessionaire is a certified ACDBE. Likewise, at all times during the term of this Agreement,
Concessionaire shall be and remain certified as an ACDBE in accordance with all applicable
federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations and shall timely file all applications, together
with all supporting documentation, necessary to maintain such certification. In the event that
Concessionaire is certified as an ACDBE and that certification is necessary to satisfy the
requirements of this Section, prior to any change in ownership, control or organization of
Concessionaire, Concessionaire shall (in addition to any requirements that may be imposed by
Section 17.1) similarly obtain ACDBE certification for Concessionaire as so changed and
provide the Port with proof of the same. If Concessionaire shall at any time cease to be so
certified, the Port may, at its sole option, terminate this Agreement on not less than ninety (90)
days advance written notice to Concessionaire. So long as Concessionaire in good faith sought
certification, reasonably complied with all requirements and deadlines necessary to maintain
certification, and nonetheless ceased to be so certified, the Port shall pay to Concessionaire the
Net Book Value of Leasehold Improvements in the event of such termination.
It is the policy of the Port to ensure that ACDBE and other small businesses have an equal
opportunity to receive and participate in U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)-assisted
contracts. The Port encourages Concessionaire to make every reasonable effort to maximize the
contracting opportunities for ACDBE and other small businesses in the architectural,
engineering and construction of the Premises, and in the procurement of goods and services
necessary for the operation of the concession at this Airport.
Concessionaire shall submit quarterly ACDBE participation reports to the Port starting on the
first day of the second month after the commencement of this Agreement. Concessionaire shall
submit such reports as may be required by the Port, for the purpose of demonstrating compliance
with 49 CFR Part 23.
As part of the Proposal, Concessionaire has committed to maintain a Twelve and One Half
Percent (12.5%) ACDBE participation level throughout the term of this Agreement.
25.2 Nondiscrimination. This Agreement is subject to the requirements of Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and the DOT's regulations, 49 CFR Part 21. Concessionaire agrees that it
will not discriminate against any business owner because of the owner's race, color, national
origin, or sex in connection with the award or performance of any concession agreement,
management contract, subcontract, purchase or lease agreement or other agreement covered by
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 50 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
082
49 CFR Part 21. Furthermore, during the performance of this Agreement, Concessionaire, for
itself, its assignees, and successors in interest (for purposes of this Section and its referenced
exhibits only, "contractor") agrees to both (i) comply with the covenants set forth on Exhibit G
and (ii) comply with the non-discrimination statutes and authorities set forth on Exhibit H.
SECTION 26: MISCELLANEOUS
26.1 Notice. Each provision of this Agreement or of any applicable governmental laws, ordinances,
regulations and other requirements with reference to the sending, mailing or delivery of any
notice or the making of any payment by one party to the other shall be deemed to be complied
with when and if made in compliance with this Section 26.1.
Notice to the Port. All notices hereunder shall be in writing and shall be delivered personally,
by certified or registered mail, or by recognized overnight courier.
For any notice directed to the Port, the address shall be as follows:
Street Address: Mailing Address:
Port of Seattle Port of Seattle
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport Seattle-Tacoma International Airport
17801 International Blvd. P. O. Box 68727
Seattle, WA 98158 Seattle, WA 98168
Attn: Aviation Commercial Management Attn: Aviation Commercial Management
For payments only as referenced in the Summary of Key Lease Terms, the address
shall be as follows:
Port of Seattle
P.O. Box 24507
Seattle, WA 98124-0507
Notices to Concessionaire. All notices hereunder shall be in writing and shall be delivered
personally, by certified or registered mail, or by recognized overnight courier.
For any notice directed to Concessionaire, the address shall be as follows:
Legal Notices:
Ms.. Courtney Thornton
Executive Vice President
DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
One Meadowlands Plaza, 11th Floor
East Rutherford, NJ 07073
Either party may, however, designate a different address from time to time by providing written
notice. Notices shall be deemed delivered (i) when personally delivered; (ii) on the third day
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 51 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
083
after mailing when sent by certified or registered mail and the postmark affixed by the United
States Postal Service shall be conclusive evidence of the date of mailing; or (iii) on the first
business day after deposit with a recognized overnight courier if deposited in time to permit
overnight delivery by such courier as determined by its posted cutoff times for receipt of items
for overnight delivery to the recipient. Payments may be made in the manner provided for notice
or may be delivered by regular mail (postage prepaid); provided, payments made by regular
mail (postage prepaid) shall be deemed delivered when actually received by the Port.
26.2 Agreements with the United States. This Agreement is subject and subordinate to the terms,
reservations, restrictions and conditions of any existing or future agreements between the Port
and the United States, including any FAA grant assurances to which the Port is subject, the
execution of which or compliance with has been or may be required as a condition precedent to
the transfer of federal rights or property to the Port for Airport purposes and the expenditure of
federal funds for the extension, expansion or development of the Airport or airport system.
26.3 Right to Develop Airport. Concessionaire agrees that the Port reserves the right to further
develop or improve the Airport and all landing areas and taxiways as the Port may see fit,
regardless of the desires or views of Concessionaire and without any interference or hindrances
from Concessionaire.
26.4 Agreement Subject to Aviation Priority. Concessionaire's right to use the Premises for the
purposes as set forth in this Agreement shall be secondary to, and subordinate to, the operation
of the Airport. Concessionaire acknowledges that because of the location of the Premises at the
Airport, noise, vibrations, fumes, debris and other interference with Concessionaire's permitted
use of the Premises will be caused by Airport operations. Concessionaire hereby waives any
and all rights or remedies against the Port arising out of any noise, vibration, fumes, debris
and/or interference that is caused by the operation of the Airport. The Port specifically reserves
for itself, and for the public, a right of flight for the passage of aircraft in the airspace above the
surface of the Airport together with the right to cause in said airspace such noise, vibration,
fumes, debris, and other interference as may be inherent in the present and future operation of
aircraft.
26.5 Modifications Required by FAA. In the event that the FAA or its successors requires
modifications or changes in this Agreement as a condition precedent to the granting of funds
for the improvement of the Airport, or otherwise, Concessionaire agrees to consent to such
amendments, modifications, revisions, supplements, or deletions of any of the terms,
conditions, or requirements of this Agreement as may be reasonably required to satisfy the FAA
requirements, subject to the provisions of this Agreement.
26.6 Brokers. The Port and Concessionaire each warrant to the other that it has had no discussions,
negotiations and/or other dealings with any real estate broker or agent and that it knows of no
other real estate broker or agent who is or may be entitled to any commission or finder's fee in
connection with this Agreement. The Port and Concessionaire each agree to indemnify and hold
the other harmless from and against all claims, demands, losses, liabilities, lawsuits, judgments,
costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorneys' fees and costs) with respect to any
leasing commission or equivalent compensation alleged to be owing on account of such party's
discussions, negotiations and/or dealings with any real estate broker. No commission(s) or
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 52 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
084
finder's fee(s) shall be paid to Concessionaire, employee(s) of Concessionaire or any unlicensed
representative of Concessionaire.
26.7 Force Majeure. In the event that either party shall be delayed or hindered in or prevented from
performing any act required under this Agreement by reason of strikes, lockouts, inability to
procure labor or materials, failure of power, restrictive governmental laws or regulations, riots,
insurrection, war, fire or other casualty or other reason of a similar nature beyond the reasonable
control of the party (and not caused by the act or neglect of Concessionaire), then performance
of such act shall be excused for the period of the delay and the period for the performance of
any such act shall be extended for a period equivalent to the period of such delay. Delays or
failures to perform resulting from lack of funds shall not be deemed delays beyond the
reasonable control of a party; and after the Rent Commencement Date, the provisions of this
Section shall not operate to excuse Concessionaire from the prompt payment of Rent as required
by this Agreement and shall not extend the term of this Agreement.
26.8 Labor Peace. Concessionaire acknowledges that the Port has a significant proprietary interest
in the success of the ADR program and so it is in the Port's economic interest to eliminate
disruptions to its tenants' operations due to labor disputes that can also negatively impact
customers using the Airport as well as airline operations.
26.9 Consent. Whenever the Port's prior consent or approval is required by this Agreement, the
same shall not be unreasonably delayed but may, unless otherwise specifically provided by this
Agreement, be granted or denied in the Port's sole and absolute discretion.
26.10 Wireless Devices. Concessionaire shall not install any wireless devices and/or transmitters on
or about the Premises without the prior written consent of the Port and subject to all conditions
in such consent. Concessionaire specifically grants to the Port the power to regulate and control
the use of unlicensed frequency bands (including, but not limited to, FCC Part 15 Subpart C,
FCC Part 15 Subpart D (both asynchronous and Isochronous), IEEE 802.11 and Bluetooth
(ISM), and FCC UNII 1 and UNII 2 (IEEE 802.11a)) on or about the Premises.
26.11 Relationship to the Port and Concessionaire. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed or
construed as creating the relationship of principal and agent, partnership, or joint venture
partners, and no provision contained in this Agreement nor any acts of Concessionaire and the
Port shall be deemed to create any relationship other than that of landlord and tenant.
26.12 Time. Time is of the essence of each and every one of Concessionaire's obligations,
responsibilities and covenants under this Agreement.
26.13 Recording. Concessionaire shall not record this Agreement or any memorandum thereof
without the Port's prior written consent.
26.14 Joint and Several Liability. Each and every party who signs this Agreement, other than in a
representative capacity, as Concessionaire, shall be jointly and severally liable hereunder. It is
understood and agreed that for convenience the word "Concessionaire" and verbs and pronouns
in the singular number and neuter gender are uniformly used throughout this Agreement,
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 53 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
085
regardless of the number, gender or fact of incorporation of the party who is, or of the parties
who are, the actual lessee or lessees under this agreement.
26.15 Captions. The captions in this Agreement are for convenience only and do not in any way limit
or amplify the provisions of this Agreement.
26.16 Governing Law; Venue. This Agreement shall be construed under the laws of Washington.
Exclusive jurisdiction and venue for any action relating to this Agreement shall be in the state
or federal courts located in King County, Washington.
26.17 Attorneys' Fees. In the event that either party shall be required to bring any action to enforce
any of the provisions of this Agreement, or shall be required to defend any action brought by
the other party with respect to this Agreement, and in the further event that one party shall
substantially prevail in such action, the losing party shall, in addition to all other payments
required therein, pay all of the prevailing party's actual costs in connection with such action,
including such sums as the court or courts may adjudge reasonable as attorneys' fees in the trial
court and in any appellate courts. For purposes of calculating attorneys' fees, legal services
rendered on behalf of the Port by public attorneys shall be computed at hourly rates charged by
attorneys of comparable experience in private practice in Seattle, Washington.
26.18 Washington Public Records Act. Concessionaire acknowledges that the Port is subject to the
provisions of the Washington Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW et seq. ("PRA"), and all
documents and information prepared or provided by Concessionaire under this Agreement may
be subject to the provisions of the PRA. The Port may disclose any such documents,
information or other materials as required: (i) to comply with the PRA; (ii) to comply with
orders of governmental entities that have jurisdiction over it; and/or (iii) as otherwise required
by law. In the event of a request for disclosure under the PRA, any obligation to keep materials
confidential shall be subject and subordinate to the Port's obligation to comply with law. In the
event of a request to the Port for disclosure of such documents, information or other materials,
time and circumstances permitting, the Port will make a good faith effort to advise
Concessionaire of such request in order to give Concessionaire the opportunity to object to the
disclosure of any of materials Concessionaire may consider confidential, proprietary or
otherwise exempt from disclosure. Concessionaire shall be solely responsible for and will bear
the full costs of taking legal action to prohibit disclosure of documents, information or other
materials. If Concessionaire elects to commence suit to oppose disclosure of any such materials,
Concessionaire agrees to defend, indemnify, and save and hold harmless the Port, its
commissioners, officers, agents, and employees, from any claim, damages, expense, loss or
costs arising out of Concessionaire's intervention including, but not limited to, prompt
reimbursement to the Port of all reasonable attorney fees, costs and damages that the Port may
incur directly or may be ordered to pay in connection with any such suit.
28.19 Invalidity of Particular Provisions. If any term or provision of this Agreement or the
application thereof to any person or circumstance shall, to any extent, be invalid or enforceable,
the remainder of this Agreement or the application of such term or provision to persons or
circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable shall not be
affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect.
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 54 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
086
26.20 Survival of Indemnities. All indemnities provided in this Agreement shall survive the
expiration or any earlier termination of this Agreement. In any litigation or proceeding within
the scope of any indemnity provided in this Agreement, Concessionaire shall, at the Port's
option, defend the Port at Concessionaire's expense by counsel satisfactory to the Port.
26.21 Entire Agreement; Amendments. This Agreement, together with any attached exhibits, shall
constitute the whole agreement between the parties. There are no terms, obligations, covenants
or conditions other than those contained in this Agreement. No modification or amendment of
this Agreement shall be valid or effective unless evidenced by an agreement in writing signed
by both parties.
26.22 Exhibits. The exhibits referenced in this Section and listed in the Summary of Key Lease Terms
are attached to this Agreement after the signatures and by this reference incorporated as a part
of this Agreement.
Exhibits to Agreement: A Legal Description of Airport
B Premises
C ADR Concessions Operating Standards
D Street Pricing Policy
E Links to key Ports Standards
F Schedule of Liquidated Damages
G Additional Non-Discrimination Covenants
H Pertinent Non-Discrimination Authorities
I Resolution 3725
SECTION 27: SIGNATURES
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have signed this Agreement as of the day and year
first above written.
PORT OF SEATTLE DUFRY SEATTLE JV
By: By:
Its: Its:
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 55 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
087
ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR CONCESSIONAIRE
STATE OF ___________________ )
) ss.
COUNTY OF _________________ )
On this _______ day of ____________________ 20___, before me, personally appeared
____________________________________ to me known to be the
____________________________________ of ____________________________________, a
____________________________________ corporation, the corporation that executed the foregoing
instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for
the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was duly authorized to execute the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above
written.
Notary Public in and for the State of
Residing at:
My commission expires:
ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR THE PORT
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF KING )
On this _______ day of ____________________ 20___ , before me, personally appeared
____________________________________ to me known to be the
____________________________________ of the PORT OF SEATTLE, a Washington municipal corporation,
the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and
voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that
he/she was duly authorized to execute the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above
written.
Notary Public in and for the State of
Residing at:
My commission expires:
CA-10, CT-07, SS-08 - 56 - DUFRY-SEATTLE JV
088
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
Main Terminal
THE WEST 2125 FEET OF THE EAST 3300 FEET OF THE NORTH 1850 FEET ALONG
WITH THE NORTH 700 FEET OF THE WEST 600 FEET OF THE EAST 1775 FEET OF
SECTION 33 AND THE WEST 2125 FEET OF THE EAST 3300 FEET OF THE SOUTH 675
FEET OF SECTION 28, ALL IN TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST W.M., KING
COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
North Satellite
THE NORTH 900 FEET OF THE SOUTH 1500 FEET OF THE EAST 400 FEET OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER AND THE NORTH 1550 FEET OF THE WEST 600 FEET OF
THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER, ALL IN SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4
EAST W.M., KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
South Satellite
THE NORTH 200 FEET OF THE WEST 900 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THE
NORTH 200 FEET OF THE EAST 250 FEET OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THE
SOUTH 800 FEET OF THE WEST 900 FEET OF THE EAST 250 FEET OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER, ALL IN TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST W.M., KING
COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
A-1
089
EXHIBIT B
Premises
B-1
090
EXHIBIT C
Operating Standards
Operating Standards for Concessionaires
at
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport
C-1
091
Table of Contents
1. DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS
2. GENERAL OVERVIEW
3. FIRST CLASS CONCESSIONS STANDARDS
3.1 On-Site Management
3.2 Cleanliness
3.3 Premises conditions
3.4 Functionality
3.5 Products
3.6 Prohibited Items
3.7 Hours of Operations
3.8 Delivery Schedule
3.9 Delivery Standards
3.10 Storage Standards
3.11 Premise Signage, Advertising and Promotional Signage
3.12 Promotional Events and Prohibited Activities
3.13 Repairs and Preventative Maintenance
3.14 Employee Parking
4. FIRST CLASS CUSTOMER SERVICE STANDARDS
4.1 First Class Customer Service Standards
4.2 ADR Employee Customer Service Standards
5. QUALITY ASSURANCE
5.1 Audit Reports and Rating System
5.2 Comments and Complaints
6. FOOD HANDLING STANDARDS
7. PEST CONTROL/UNIFIED PEST MANAGEMENT (UPM)
8. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOLID WASTE PROGRAM
8.1 Trash
8.3 Recycling
8.2 Recycling
8.3 Composting
8.4 Waste Collection and Signage
8.5 Used Cooking Oil (UCO)
8.6 Hazardous Material/Waste
8.7 Training
8.8 Food Donation Program
9. SAFETY AND SECURITY
9.1 Emergency Evacuation Plans
9.2 Securing Units
9.3 Prohibited Items Log
C-2
092
9.4 Lost and Found
9.5 Maintenance and Mid-Term Refurbishment Construction and Repairs
10. INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
11. EMPLOYEE SERVICES
11.1 ID Badges
11.2 Parking
11.3 Employment Opportunities
1. DEFINITIONS & ACRONYMS
"ACC" is short for the Airport Communications Center
"ADA" is short for the Americans with Disabilities Act
"ADM" is short for an Airport Duty Manager
"ADR" is short for Airport Dining and Retail
"Agreement" means and refers to the Lease and Concession Agreement.
"Airport" means the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, which is owned and
operated by the Port of Seattle (the Port).
"COOP" is short for Continuity of Operations Plan
"Music Program" means the live performances and overhead music heard
throughout the Airport.
"Concessionaire" means the Concessionaire identified in the Agreement.
"Port Representative" means any Port employee with the authority to act regarding
these standards or the Lease and Concession Agreement (to which these standards
are attached). Port Representatives will generally be identified in writing, but if the
Concessionaire has any questions regarding whether a particular person has
authority to act, the Concessionaire should contact their Airport Dining and Retail
Business Manager for clarification.
"Premises" means the unit spaces, either individually or collectively, as identified in
the Agreement.
2. GENERAL OVERVIEW
The Airport Dining and Retail Program (ADR) at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport places
a significant importance on creating an exceptional passenger experience, which is one of
the key strategic goals of the Airport.
This manual identifies requirements for the ADR Program that match the expectations and
needs of our passengers. It outlines customer service standards for all Concessionaires,
facility and maintenance standards for ADR locations, as well as general operations and
security standards for the airport. We expect every Concessionaire to refer to the standards
outlined in this manual in addition to any supplemental documents provided by ADR, to
C-3
093
ensure compliance. Provided the revisions do not materially increase the cost of
Concessionaire's operations at the Airport, these standards are subject to modification from
time-to-time to address the ever-changing Airport environment. Failure to comply with
these standards may subject Concessionaire to liquidated damages and/or default under
the terms of Concessionaire's Agreement.
3. FIRST CLASS STANDARDS
The Port desires to provide air travelers, Airport employees, and the public with facilities,
service, food, beverages and retail merchandise in First Class Manner. As defined in the
Agreement, a First Class Manner refers to a standard of products, cleanliness, and
customer service that would be reasonably expected in upscale shopping malls and other
similar high-quality airport and non-airport retail and food service facilities.
To ensure compliance, the Port requires that all concessionaires provide a detailed plan
of operations including Preventative Maintenance Schedules for all equipment,
Emergency Evacuation Plans, and Sanitation Checklists for each location to the ADR
Business Manager, no later than ninety (90) days prior to the opening of the space.
3.1 On-Site Manager
To ensure that this standard is met at all times, all of Concessionaire locations
must be under the supervision and direction of an active, qualified, competent,
and experienced on-site Manager, who will at all times be authorized to
represent and act for the Concessionaire on all management, maintenance, and
operations issues. The on-site Manager should have a designated duty station or
office inside one (or more) of the Concessionaire's units where he or she will be
available during business hours. If or when that manager is absent for whatever
reason, the Manager or other Concessionaire Management Representative must
assign one or more qualified assistant managers to assume and be directly
responsible for carrying out the on-site Manager's supervisory duties.
Concessionaire will provide (and update) contact information for
Concessionaire's Managers so that a Port Representative may contact them in
emergencies or during non-business hours.
3.2 Cleanliness
The Port is responsible for providing maintenance and janitorial services in
common-use areas only. Janitorial and maintenance deficiencies observed in
common areas of the Airport should be reported by calling the Airport
Communications Center (ACC) at (206) 787-5406. Concessionaires are
responsible for providing janitorial services within their Premises as well as the
storefront and any attached signage. The following general requirements detail
specific guidelines for Concessionaire's locations:
Units must always appear clean, uncluttered, organized, well maintained,
and free of debris and of unpleasant odors.
C-4
094
Excess stock, merchandise, and products must be stored neatly out of view of
the customer.
Aisles and hallways (both inside and outside the unit) must be free of carts,
pallets, dollies, crates, boxes, trash, equipment, etc. per the fire code.
All seating must be clean and well maintained.
Employee personal belongings must not be stored in the public view.
Windowsills must be clean and free of dirt, debris and dust.
Windows, display cases and all other glass must be clean, free of
smudges/food/dirt, noticeable streaks and dust both inside and out.
Trash receptacles and wastebaskets must be cleaned inside and out, odor
free, and continually emptied to avoid overflow; trash receptacles must
contain approved trash liners at all times.
Walls/columns must present a freshly painted or clad appearance and be
free of dirt, marks, chips and graffiti.
Carpet, rugs and/or mats must be:
o Free of all dirt, debris, and loose or embedded gum.
o Thoroughly vacuumed in all areas every day
o Free of all spots, stains, rips, or cracks.
o Free of dust build-up at or around carpet edges, corners, chair bases,
stanchions or other objects that are placed on the carpet.
o Carpet maintenance must include the removal of surface and embedded
sand, soil, stains, spots and bacteria on a regular and frequent schedule
in order to ensure an acceptable appearance and to remove soil that
would shorten the useful life of the carpet.
Hard surface floors must be:
o Free of all dirt, debris and loose or embedded gum.
o Free of all deep surface scratches and abrasions that haze the floor's
appearance.
o Free of spots and finish discoloration due to previous cleaning or lack of
addressing spills in a timely manner.
o Free of dust or grime build-up at, or around, floor surface edges, corners,
chair bases, stanchions, or other objects that are placed on the floor.
o When liquid is spilled, appropriate signs must be provided until clean up
occurs. Janitorial services must be notified.
o Floor grout must be in good repair, free of water, dirt and grime buildup.
Ceilings, grids and tiles must be dust, cobweb free and unsoiled. Ceiling tiles
must be present, positioned in place to provide a clean appearance and
without any gaps or tears
Fans, grills, vents, light fixtures, & assemblies must be clean and dust free.
Railings, gates and fencing must be tightened, clean and free of dust and
grime.
All structures must be free of dirt, dust and graffiti.
3.3 Condition
C-5
095
Seating must be clean and free of rips, tears, and broken parts. Seating that
is ripped, torn or broken must be replaced immediately or removed from the
area. If damage occurs and will require an extended period to repair or
replace, Business Manager must be notified within 48 hours of damage
occurring. Furniture must be decommissioned until repair or replacement
can take place; duct tape, paper or similar temporary repair materials are not
allowed
Point of sale and cashier areas must appear neat, organized and clean.
All equipment must be operational and be clean and free of dust and dirt.
Fans, light fixtures, assemblies, and bulbs must be operational, clean and
free of dust.
Carpets must not be worn or frayed; tile and stone flooring must be free of
large cracks or gouges and broken pieces.
Tile, terrazzo, and all flooring must be free of cracks, gouges and broken
pieces.
Physical facilities, such as counters, booths, display fixtures, coolers, and
kiosks must be in good repair and like new condition.
All locations must have a pleasant atmosphere and present an inviting
appearance, which is free of clutter and debris.
Apparel and accessories must be neatly folded or hung in appropriate areas
with pricing clearly labeled.
Trash, packaging, shipping materials, debris and delivery carts/totes must be
stored out of the public view or removed promptly from the public areas.
Furniture, display cases, fixtures, and shelving must be in a like-new
condition with no deep cuts, scratches, graffiti, or broken pieces.
Concessionaires must immediately remove any damaged furnishing that will
pose a safety hazard to the customer. Furnishing placement must comply
with all applicable codes to ensure appropriate width for persons with
disabilities and permit free movement by customers with carry-on-baggage.
All furnishings must remain aligned with the permitted layout approved
previously approved by the Port.
Roll gates and other types of entry security equipment must be in working
condition. Concessionaire must take immediate measures to ensure repairs
are completed and notify the Port when repairs are completed; yearly
maintenance is required.
Fire extinguishers/fire protection/life safety systems including C02 tanks
must have current certification, be operational and properly mounted per fire
code.
Concessionaire's areas must be free of any signs of insects or rodents.
Consistent issues with the maintainability of the Concessionaire's Premises
may result in liquidated damages.
3.4 Functionality
C-6
096
Customer comment cards must be readily available. In lieu of comment cards,
a customer comment line/email must be provided on all receipts.
All doors/gates must be maintained, in good working order and must comply
with applicable codes. Doors/gates must be free of noticeable smudges, dirt,
grime and obstacles that would impede the public's path or employees'
ingress/egress.
Music audible to customers within individual units must be provided by the
Concessionaire's audio system and approved in writing by the Port; approved
music must be at a level appropriate for customer enjoyment within the
Premise and must be appropriate content for all audiences (must not contain
any vulgarity or graphic language or undertones)
Music systems must be clear/audible and in good working condition with
appropriate volume levels that do not to interfere with the Airport address
system, cause annoyance to Airport patrons, or conflict with the Music
Program.
Seating must not be removed from designated areas. All tables, fixtures,
chairs, kick rails, and table bases must be free of debris, dirt build-up, and
scuff marks.
Refrigerators and coolers must be in good working condition and free of odor
and spills.
Trash receptacles and wastebaskets must be in good working condition,
sufficient in number, cleaned nightly and must not obstruct the path of the
public.
Counters and cash wrap areas must be neat and clean in
appearance.
Lighting must be adequate in all areas and in compliance with applicable
codes and design standards.
Contractors' or vendors' supplies and equipment must be stored out of
customers view when not in use. A complete concession cleaning kit
containing supplies for dust, glass, and wood cleaning products must be
maintained in all units and stored out of public view.
Television monitors must be in good working condition; to ensure compliance
with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) the closed captioned feature
must be enabled at all times.
All Premises must adhere to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
requirements, providing unobstructed, and code compliant pathways.
Fire extinguishers/fire protection/life safety systems must be operational
and checked/inspected annually and properly mounted as appropriate per
code.
Mop, mop bucket, strainer, and mop sink must be maintained and clean at all
times.
All merchandise and areas that hold store merchandise must be free of dust
and spilled product. All cabinetry, shelves, display units, and wall bays must
be free of marks, dust, and spilled product.
C-7
097
All menu boards, cash wraps, nesting tables, fixtures, and condiment bars
must be free of dust, stains, residue, spills, trash and clutter.
All windows, lighting, non-glass doors, glass areas, brass, and chrome
surfaces must be free of dust, spills, handprints, scuffmarks, and splashed
product.
The Point-of-Sale (POS) systems and surrounding area, as well as other
equipment must be organized, clean, free of marks, and dust.
No freestanding or mobile signs, fixtures, display carts, merchandise display
units, or racks of any kind are allowed outside of the lease line without prior
written approval from the Senior Manager of ADR.
Storefronts must be open, inviting and clutter-free.
Auction, fire, bankruptcy, close out, distress, liquidation, going-out-of-
business sales or operating as an outlet/surplus store are not allowed in the
Premises; Periodic seasonal, promotional or clearance sales are not
precluded and must be approved in writing by the Business Manager.
Any national or locally-branded operation must accept company-branded
"cash cards" or "gift cards" for purchase at all of Concessionaire's Airport
locations, unless Concessionaire can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Port Representative that in order to enable such acceptance additional
equipment or systems would be required to be installed and are not viable
for the operation.
Concessionaire must accept traveler's checks and at least three (3)
nationally recognized credit or debit cards (e.g., American Express, Master
Card, VISA or as designated by the Port Representative) for any purchase
amount.
Concessionaire is not permitted to add a "tip," "gratuity," "service charge,"
"concession recovery charge" or other similar charge to customer invoices.
The only exception to this is locations with table service. In such cases, for
parties of eight (8) customers or more, the Concessionaire may add a gratuity
of no greater than eighteen percent (18%), so long as it is noted on the menu
that such charge will be added, the server informs the party that such charge
will be added to the bill for the table, and the Concessionaire pays the entire
amount collected to the server and/or appropriate staff. Concessionaire may
provide a business case for the insertion of "concessions recovery charge" or
"service charge" language to be added to menus for locations with table
service to the Port. Written approval from the Senior Manager of ADR must
be provided in advance of enacting such charge or printing of menus.
Placement of a tip jar or container in public view (i.e. on counters in counter
service locations, etc.) is only allowed in coffee concept units and must be
professionally made. No handwritten notes requesting "tips" will be allowed.
"Take-a-penny/leave-a-penny", fundraiser and charitable donation cups are
prohibited.
C-8
098
Written approval by the Port Representative must be obtained by the
Concessionaire prior to the installation of sound systems, radios, televisions,
or other similar devices.
3.5 Products
The Port Representative reserves the right to approve or disapprove all
products, prices, and product displays.
The Port Representative has the right to require Concessionaire to
discontinue the sale of any product he/she, deems unsatisfactory, distasteful,
or inappropriate for any reason and to require Concessionaire to modify
product displays for any reason. Concessionaire will comply with any such
direction within twenty-four (24) hours following notice. Failure to comply
with such direction may result in liquidated damages.
At the Port Representative's written request, the Concessionaire will provide
for the sale of any merchandise or the furnishing of any reasonable services
that may be determined necessary for increased sales and passenger
satisfaction.
Concessionaire will keep in stock and have ready for sale at all times of
operation, a sufficient supply of current-season merchandise, articles, and
goods, as may be appropriate to the operation, to meet the demand of
customers at the Airport.
Concessionaire must ensure that product variety is adequate at each location.
Concessionaires will use durable (i.e. washable) service ware where feasible
at restaurants with sit-down dining.
A list of approved compostable and recyclable service ware (i.e. plates, bowls,
cups, lids, straws, cutlery, clamshells, etc.) by the Airport's compost and
recycling service providers can be found in the Rules and Regulations.
Concessionaires may request exemptions in writing to the Port
Representative for specific food service ware items (e.g. plastic spoons, foil
wraps) for which compostable/recyclable alternatives are not readily
available or suitable for use.
All food and beverage menu items should be made available "to go" for
customers if they so request. The carry out or "to go" containers and service
ware should be either compostable or recyclable and of high quality and
substantial enough for the customer to take on an airplane. Expanded
polystyrene foam ("Styrofoam") service ware is strictly prohibited.
Concessionaire will develop and implement creative merchandising
techniques to entice customers to purchase food, beverages, and retail
merchandise, including without limitation, food and beverage displays; retail
merchandise displays; display cases; promotional displays; attractive and
durable packaging; menu boards or tabletop menus; and pictures of food and
beverages or retail merchandise. All additional display fixtures must be
approved in writing by the Port Representative.
C-9
099
Alcoholic Beverages
All Concessionaires will be required to obtain their own liquor licenses
and permit through the proper procedures with the Washington State
Liquor and Cannabis Board and any other required government
agency.
The legal drinking age in the State of Washington is 21 or older and
must be strictly enforced by all concessionaires.
All alcoholic beverage consumption will be restricted within the
concessionaire's Premise in an enclosed and clearly defined dining
space and closely monitored by concessionaires employees, manager,
Airport Police and TSA.
3.6 Prohibited Items
PROHIBITED ITEMS:
For any kind of knife (including box cutters), tools or other items prohibited by the TSA
(see https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/prohibited-items for latest list of
items), the following procedures must be adhered to:
Prohibited items fall into to two (2) categories (Sharps and Tools). Examples can be
found below HOWEVER this is not limited or restricted to these items shown below:
Sharp Objects Tools
Knives (except for plastic and/or round bladed Drills and Drill bits; including portable
butter knives) power drills
Meat Cleavers Tools greater than seven (7) inches in
length
Blades Screwdrivers/Wrenches/Pliers
Scissors pointed tips and blades greater than Saws; including portable power saws
four (4) inch from the fulcrum)
Box Cutters Crowbars
Razors types blades, Utility Knives Hammers
Ice Axes/Ice Picks Axes and Hatchets
All Concessions/Lounges operating in the Sterile Area at Sea-Tac International Airport
must adhere to the Aviation Security Prohibited Items Policy in order to maintain
consistency in all Concessions locations and comply with current regulations. This
policy will help Concessions better manager the security of the "Tools of Trade" and the
safety of the travelling public. Each Concession must agree to the following:
1. Submit a "Prohibited Items Safety Plan" describing:
a. The need and purpose of the Prohibited Items
b. Accountability during the hours of operation
c. Responsibility; Who check them in/out
d. Secure storage inside the facility
C-10
100
e. Training employees received
*Concessions/Lounges who do not have Prohibited Items within their location or
Storage Unit in the Sterile Area must submit a letter stating that fact.
2. Sign the Acknowledgement and Accountability Form. By signing this document,
Concessions will agree to abide by the rules and regulations put in place ensure
Safety and Security in the Sterile area.
3. Submit a detailed inventory, listing the type and quantity of Prohibited Items
within each Concession. This will serve as a benchmark for future inspections
and audits.
3.6.1 Prohibited Item Procedures:
o Any changes in the number of Prohibited Items must be documented on the
company's Prohibited Inventory List
o All Prohibited Items must be brought in through the Airfield Operation Area and
not through the Checkpoint
o You are responsible to secure Prohibited Items which are job-related and allowed
to be brought into the Sterile/Restricted Area for performing your job.
o All items should be visibly labeled for accountability purposes. Best practice is to
engrave the blade or the handle.
o All items must be accounted for at all times.
o All items must be stored in a locked container (safe, cabinet, and drawer) or office
o The Manager or Designated individual opening the location at the start of the
business day should be the only individual who will inventory these items and
issue the items at the start of the day.
o At the close of the business day, the Manager of Designated individual will collect
the Prohibited Items and account for them being returned.
o The items will then be stored in the designated safe, cabinet, or container.
o Any missing or unaccounted items should be reported immediately to the Airport
Security Department.
o AT NO TIME should Prohibited Items be left unattended. When an employee
leaves a work station, knives must be secured. Knives in view of the public must
be secured or inaccessible at all times.
o The Prohibited Items Log must be posted and completed at the beginning and end
of each business day.
o Each location must start a new Prohibited Items Log at the beginning of each
month
o The Prohibited Items Log must be turned in to the Compliance Coordinator no later
than the 5th of the following month to bakam.h@portseattle.org,
waterton.a@portseattle.org or faxed to (206) 787-6120.
C-11
101
3.6.2 Enforcement
Aviation Security Personnel will conduct monthly audits of Concessions operating in the
Sterile Area to ensure that they are in compliance with the regulations. Audit points
include (but are not limited to) the following:
The Prohibited Items Log will be checked to ensure it is properly completed
The Inventory Log will be checked to ensure all items are accounted for
The audits will ensure that Concessions are not selling Prohibited Items to the
travelling public and that items in use are not accessible to passengers.
Each stores management/supervisors/employees will ultimately be held responsible for
any violations to the above described policy. Any violations to the above Prohibited Items
procedures will be documented and will be treated as a default of the Unit Concession
Agreement under Section 23.01 and are subject to any and all local, state and federal
penalties of Prohibited Items within the Sterile Area of the Airport.
Violation notices will be issued to the alleged violators within five (5) business days of an
incident. Notices will be delivered either by email, certified mail, or in person. It is the
responsibility of every airport ID badge holder to ensure the correct email address and/or
mailing address is on file in the Port of Seattle Credential Center.
Some examples of possible violations related to Prohibited Items are:
Leaving Prohibited Items unattended
Failure to inventory a Prohibited Item
Failure to log a Prohibited Item
All infractions will be to penalties from the Airport Security Department. Infractions will
be subject to the following penalties:
First Offense: Confiscation of ID badge for three (3) days, a fine of $200 and the
offender will be required to retake the SIDA training.
Second Offense: Confiscation of IS badge for seven (7) days, a fine of $400 and the
offender and the Store Manager/Supervisor will be required to retake the SIDA
training.
Third Offense: Permanent confiscation of ID badge/access cancelled
Federal violations fall under:
49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1540.105(a) (1) and (2).
50 1540.105 Security responsibilities of employees and other persons.
(a) No person may:
C-12
102
(1) Tamper or interfere with, compromise, modify, attempt to circumvent, or cause a
person to tamper or interfere with, compromise, modify, or attempt to circumvent any
security system, measure, or procedure implemented under this subchapter.
(2) Enter, or be present within, a secured area, AOA, SIDA or sterile area without
complying with the systems, measures, or procedures being applied to control access
to, or presence or movement in, such areas.
*An appeal process is available to those who receive a violation. The Airport Security
Appeals Board (ASAB) convenes at least once a month. Please contact the Port of Seattle
Aviation Security Department for additional details and to schedule a hearing. If a person
chooses to use the appeals process, decisions made by the ASAB are binding and final.
3.7 Hours of Operations
The Premises must be open to the public seven (7) days per week, three hundred sixty-five
(365) days per year to adequately serve the traveling public. The Port determines the
minimum hours of service based on traveling public demand and the Airport's flight
schedules.
Unless otherwise approved by the Senior Manager of of ADR, all
Concessionaires must adhere to the minimum hours of operations as
stipulated by the Port. The minimum hours of operation are: All
Concessionaires are to be open two (2) hours before the first flight and must
remain open until the last flight within the concourse. Concessionaire may
request a deviation of hours by providing an analysis of the optimum
arrangement, but the final determination of minimum hours of operation will
be made by the Senior Manager of ADR.
Store hours will be extended to accommodate passengers due to flight
delays.
Stores must be staffed to accommodate the operations from opening to
closing. Deviation maybe approved by the Port Representative for inventory or
other circumstances; however, all requests must be submitted at least 48
hours before the event to allow for processing and approval.
No concession locations will be blocked off or closed at any time during the
designated minimum hours of operation.
3.7.1 Holiday Reduced Hours
Requests for reduced hours for the Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day
must be submitted 30 days prior to the Thanksgiving or Christmas holiday.
Reduced hours of operations will be approved at the discretion of the Senior
Manager of ADR based on the flight schedules within the areas adjacent to
each proposed space. Concessionaires must inform all employees that
approved reduced hours may change due to operational issues, delays or
situations that mandate adjusting the prior approved schedule.
C-13
103
3.8 Delivery Schedule
Concessionaires are responsible for their operational delivery and distribution system
whether it is on-site or off-site. The Airport recognizes the following activities as a delivery:
Deliveries from off Airport sites to the Concessionaire's unit.
Deliveries from off Airport sites to the Concessionaire's storage space.
Concessionaire moving items from a storage location to the unit.
Deliveries to the Airport's main terminal load dock must occur between:
DAY HOURS
Monday 7:00 AM 3:00 PM
Tuesday through Friday 7:00 AM 4:00 PM
Saturday 5:30 AM 2:00 PM
All deliveries should observe assigned delivery times to better utilize parking
spaces and freight elevators. The load dock hours are subject to change at any
time without advance notice.
Deliveries to the units must be made between 9.a.m.-11.a.m. and 2:00 p.m.
and 6:00 p.m. all days of the week.
3.9 Delivery Standards
Concessionaires and/or their vendors/contractors will be responsible for
reporting any problems with the freight elevators and will work with the
Airport to maintain safe and efficient elevators. Costs to repair elevators
damaged by Concessionaires (or their vendors/contractors) will be billed to
the Concessionaire found responsible for the damage. To report elevator
problems call ACC at (206) 7878-5406.
Cart wheels and hand trucks must have non-marring/pneumatic tires and
be silent.
Carts must be in like-new condition. No maintenance of carts, dollies, hand
trucks, etc. is allowed in the terminal on the concourse level at any time. All
damaged or non-operable carts, etc. must be removed from the area
immediately.
Weight loads must not exceed the maximum limits specified by the
transporting equipment's manufacturer.
Merchandise and products must be delivered to Concessionaire's locations
without interfering with public traffic in the Terminal.
Daytime deliveries are not authorized without prior approval of the Port.
Deliveries must not be transported on the passenger elevators, moving
sidewalks, or the train system. In the event that train service is needed, the
C-14
104
Concessionaire must coordinate the use of the train in advance with Aviation
Maintenance at (206)787-7930.
The number of vehicles on the Airport ramp is limited during normal hours of
operation by delivering the majority of products and merchandise during the
night and early morning hours. Airport safety is our primary concern and
every Concessionaire will cooperate with all Airport Rules & Regulations
(which can be found at http://www.portseattle.org/Business/Airport-
Tenants/Pages/default.aspx).
Concessionaires will ensure the restocking of the unit occurs during non-
peak hours as specified in the Deliveyr Standards
The load dock supervisors will monitor all daytime activity. Parking is at a
premium during the day, and coordination for extended use of parking
spaces is vital. Delivery drivers should inform the loading dock supervisor of
the estimated duration of time for the escort or delivery.
Concessionaires may request authorization from the ADR Port
Representative to receive and restock newspapers and magazines during
daytime hours; however, the product totes or containers are not allowed to
remain in the unit unless they are actively being restocked.
Concessionaires and their vendors are not allowed to deliver, store or stage
boxes, cartons, barrels, or other similar items, in an unsightly or unsafe
manner, on or about the Premises or in the common areas.
Pallet jacks are not allowed on the granite flooring.
3.10 Storage Standards
Unless otherwise provided for in the Agreement, no persons may use any area
of the Airport for storage of equipment, product, or other property without
first obtaining formal written permission from a Port Representative.
All Concessionaire storage is located within designated areas per the
Agreement or a Supplement to the Agreement
Storage areas are to remain clean, with a clear path of travel , at all times.
Storage is not to be used to house trash or recyclables under any
circumstances
All inventory must be placed within the designated storage areas within 90
minutes of delivery
All pallets must be stacked horizontally, in the designated areas and picked
up within 24-hours of delivery by the vendor. Pallets may not be stacked
vertically, in walkways, or against cages.
All crates must be stacked in a single row against the designated storage
cage for pick up by the vendor within 24-hours of delivery. Crates may not
block the path of travel at any time.
C-15
105
All wrapping for pallets, crates, boxes etc., must be broken down and
disposed in the designated trash areas immediately following delivery break
down.
3.11 Premise Signage
All signs internal and external, signage stand holders, menu boards, and
blade signs must be clean, free of dust, and in good working condition.
Pictures, displays, and frames (whether art or advertising) must be clean and
free of tears, scratches and dust.
All illuminated signs must be in proper working condition. Tubular or neon
lighting is not preferred; and must be approved by a Port Representative
before installation.
Unauthorized postings are not permitted.
Handwritten and/or unprofessional signs are strictly prohibited. No
exceptions will be allowed.
Signs must not obstruct any life safety devices, AED machines, smoke
detectors, or fire sprinklers.
Signs must not impede the functionality of light fixtures or air conditioning
grills.
Exit doors must be operational, illuminated, and clearly signed.
Enforcement/warning signs must be appropriately posted.
Dynamic signs must operate properly and display the correct information.
No Concessionaire will make any alterations of any nature whatsoever to
signage on any building, ramp, wall, or other Airport space.
Signs must be visible and illuminated (if applicable) and in proper working
condition.
Store policies regarding credit cards, returns/refunds, etc. must be clearly
displayed in the unit preferably near the checkout areas.
Prices must be clearly displayed (either item or category priced).
Flashing or blinking signs are strictly prohibited.
Evacuation routes must be clearly posted for customers and employees. For
Food & Beverage locations, evacuation plans must be posted in both the
kitchen and available in the front of house.
During flight delays, hours of operation may be extended to accommodate
passengers at the discretion of the ADR Senior Manager.
"Going Out of Business", "Store Closing", "Liquidation" and similar
signage is strictly prohibited.
3.11.1 Advertising and Promotional Signage
Concessionaires must receive written approval from a Port Representative
prior to the installation of any promotional banners or signage.
C-16
106
Menus, signs and/or graphics on counter back walls must receive written
approval from a Port Representative in advance of installation.
Flashing, laser, or blinking signs are strictly prohibited.
No persons without written authorization from a Port Representative may
post commercial signs, banners, or distribute advertisements, literature,
circulars, pictures, sketches, drawings, handbills, or any other form of
printed or written commercial matter or material at the Airport.
Retail advertisements can/must be displayed within the leased premises.
Handwritten signs are strictly prohibited.
3.12 Promotional Events and Prohibited Activities
All promotional activities or events must obtain prior written approval from a Port
Representative. All promotional activities in the Terminal, with the exception of the
Airport's promotions and advertising contracts, will be of limited duration and will be
subject to the discretion of the Port Representative. Such promotional activities may be
permitted only where they do not interfere with normal operations of the Terminal.
Promotional activities will be limited to the following:
Approved art and displays that provide public service messages
Promotions conducted within the limits of the leased areas unless otherwise
approved in writing by a Port Representative.
Approved advertising conducted under the terms of the Airport's advertising
contract.
Promotional activities requiring tents, cooking facilities, pyrotechnics or events
where the number of people will exceed the normal occupancy of the designated
area will require approval by the Fire Marshal and Port Representative. The Fire
Marshal may require permits or a fire watch as applicable.
With the exception of concession promotions, the sale/or give away of food and
beverages associated with a promotion is prohibited.
Literature and promotional items cannot be distributed outside of the location lease
line unless otherwise approved by the ADR Senior Manager.
Banners to promote new services and/or awards in the Terminal must first be
approved in writing by the Port Representative and may only be displayed for a
period not to exceed two weeks unless otherwise approved.
Clean up activities associated with any promotion, unless otherwise specified are
the responsibility of the entity organizing the promotion.
Requests to conduct promotional activities in the terminal must be made in writing
to the ADR Senior Manager for written approval.
Concessionaire is prohibited from offering/selling the following items in their
Premises: vending machines, pay telephones, advertisements not pertaining to
Concessionaire's operations; coin-operated amusement machines, ATMs; hotel,
motel, or ground transportation reservation information; liquor, beer, and bottles of
wine for off-premises consumption (unless otherwise approved as part of the
C-17
107
concept); Wi-Fi services; or helium-filled balloons. This is not a comprehensive list
and all items are subject to approval by the Port Representative.
3.13 Repairs and Preventative Maintenance
The Concessionaire has the sole responsibility for maintenance and facility upkeep
within the unit. Without in any manner limiting the specific requirements of your Lease
and Concession Agreement, this includes HVAC system, floors, walls, equipment (i.e.
cooler, registers), and other non-Airport maintained devices. Concessionaire must keep
the premises and all improvements in good repair and in a clean, neat, safe and sanitary
condition at all times. If damage is determined to come from the building roof or
exterior, contact ACC at (206) 787-5229 to address the source of the problem.
As determined by the Port Representative, the Concessionaire will repair, replace
and/or repaint fixtures, furnishings and/or equipment that is damaged, worn or in
disrepair if it becomes reasonably necessary during the term of the Lease and
Concession Agreement other than in the midterm. It is mandatory that all maintenance
issues and repairs be identified and repaired immediately to keep the operation
compliant with First Class Concessions Standards. The following inspections are
required to preformed throughout the year are varying intervals. Concessionaires are
required to provide proof of completed inspections for the following systems:
Type 1 Hood Systems (Grease Hood)
Type 2 Hood Systems (Steam Hood)
Ansul Systems
Fire Extinguishers
Make Up Air Units
Remote Refrigeration Lines/Systems
Grease Cooking Equipment
Floor Drains, Sanitary and Grease Waste Lines
Gas Connections
Backflow Prevention system(s)
Flushing Beer Lines
Hot Water Tanks
Specifics for systems cleaning and maintenance procedures can be found in the
Preventative Maintenance (PMP) Manual located on the ADR website at
https://www.portseattle.org/sea-tac/dining-retail.
3.14 Parking
Employee parking is available for purchase either by Concessionaire or by individual
employee. Price and information can be found on the Port's website at:
http://www.portseattle.org/employee-services/employee-parking/Pages/default.aspx
C-18
108
4. FIRST CLASS CUSTOMER SERVICE STANDARDS
The Port expects First Class, customer-focused service by all Concessionaires at all
times. Without limiting any of the more specific requirements set forth in these
Operating Standards, service will be timely, attentive, and friendly. In order to
accomplish this, Concessionaire must employ a sufficient number of properly trained
personnel to manage and operate the Premises at its maximum capacity and efficiency.
A sufficient number is one that consistently provides customers with no unreasonable
delay or inconvenience in moving through point of sale or selecting products or service.
At a minimum, customers will be promptly attended to in a friendly and courteous
manner. Self-service elements will be easily seen and accessible by customers.
Processing of payments will be prompt with receipts properly itemized, reflecting
precisely the products and services purchased, and will present individual prices, total
and taxes. In addition, all customers will be thanked for their patronage. Other
expectations of all Airport employees include, but are not limited to the following:
Guarantee a quality product or service that meets or exceeds a customer's
expectations.
Have an overall understanding of the layout of the Airport and be willing to
offer assistance as needed.
Have responsibility for uncompromising levels of cleanliness.
Maintain a positive workplace image (ex. appropriate in-store conversation
between employees)
Provide customers their full attention during the interaction and address
concerns immediately.
Respond to customer questions or complaints within three business days
whether verbal or written.
Provide a friendly and professional, verbal audible greeting within 10 seconds
of a customer entering an establishment, thanking them for their business
and inviting them to return as they exit.
Maintain a well-groomed, neat, professional clean appearance at all times.
o Uniforms will be clean and appropriately fitted at all times. In the
absence of Concessionaire standardized uniform standards, the
requirement will be to wear black shirts with black pants.
o Hair will be neatly groomed and pulled away from the face at all
times.
o Airport ID badges and Concessionaire nametags must be
appropriately displayed at all times.
o Employees must maintain eye contact while conversing with
customers and fellow employees.
Employees will refrain from using foul or inappropriate language at any time
in the workplace, in the Airport, or while traveling to/from work via
employee shuttles or public transportation and while wearing the company's
uniform and/or Airport ID badge.
Employees will refrain from eating, drinking, chewing gum, or talking on the
C-19
109
phones in the presence of customers. Personal electronic devices or ear
phones/buds are not permitted at any time while employees are on duty.
Employees will refrain from taking breaks in theq corridors, hallways, and
gate lobbies.
Employees are not allowed to use or move furniture or equipment anywhere
or anytime for the purpose of sitting or eating during their breaks.
4.1 ADR Employee Customer Service Standards
The ADR Staff holds every Concessionaire accountable to the Airport Dining and Retail
Program and the Airport's customer service standards. Every Concessionaire's
customer service program must meet or exceed the Airport's service standards. To
achieve a first class level of service throughout the ADR Program, the Port has
implemented additional service standards above those stated in the Concessionaire's
Agreement that will help ensure a positive customer experience. For this reason, each
Concessionaire's employees must also comply with the following:
Greet all customers in a friendly and professional manner with a sincere smile.
Always be properly identifiable as an Airport concessions employee by making sure
to wear both their Airport ID and Concessionaire provided nametag at all times.
Display a positive attitude toward all customers and be sensitive to special needs of
passengers.
Speak clearly; enunciate fully to clearly communicate with customers.
Listen carefully, and show empathy when encountering an upset customer. Resolve
problems quickly and effectively in the most equitable way possible.
Use a courteous tone of voice and proper vocabulary with customers. For example,
use words such as "please," "yes," "hello", and "thank you."
While working indoors, remove sunglasses to facilitate eye contact. This standard
does not apply to employees prescribed to wear sunglasses indoors by a doctor.
Respond appropriately to customers' needs or refer them to another person who
might be better suited to provide assistance.
Be well informed, capable of providing directions, and know where and how to
obtain requested items, services or information for customers even when language
barriers arise.
Ensure the customer's question(s) have been answered before walking away or
completing the transaction.
Obtain the facts, state any applicable policy clearly and politely, and be able to
offer a solution or an alternative to a difficult customer.
Do not leave a customer in your establishment unattended unless it is deemed an
official emergency.
Resolve complaints promptly and maintain records for Port Representative follow-
up.
Employees must provide a receipt and correct change with every transaction.
Staffing levels must be high enough to greet customers within the 10 seconds
standard and prevent wait times longer than 2 minutes at the cash registers. It
C-20
110
is highly recommended that there be at least (2) employees staffed in each store at
all times.
Provide all services to customers on a fair, equal, and nondiscriminatory basis and
charge fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory prices; except when giving such
reasonable and nondiscriminatory discounts or other similar price reductions to its
and other Airport employees.
4.1 Customer Service Training
Customer service training is essential in establishing consistent guidelines for
employees to ensure that all Concessionaires are addressing the customers' demands
appropriately. Concessionaires are required to provide Customer Service training to all
of their employees throughout the year. All Concessionaires and their employees are
required to attend the Port Customer Service and Preventative Maintenance Trainings;
Concessionaires and their employees must fully participate and pay its share of any
costs associated with such program(s).
5. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM
5.1 Reports and Rating System
The Quality Assurance Program and Reports is managed by the Port Representative to
record periodic audits and inspections of all ADR locations. The primary focus of these
audits and inspections is to: (1) evaluate the level of customer service, first class
concessions complaints and make recommendations to correct concerns, (2) improve
customer service by identifying critical areas of focus; and, (3) create a historical record
of the Concessionaire's performance for future reference.
Audit and inspections include a detailed observation and evaluation of the following
areas:
Facility Appearance and Preventative Maintenance Management
Customer Service
Merchandise Quality and Food Safety
First Class Concessions Compliance
Each evaluation is scored from 1 to 7 (with 1 being the lowest and 7 as the highest),
which translates to one of four ratings Unacceptable, Needs Improvement,
Acceptable, Excellent.
The following is the rating system equivalent based on a 100%:
Rating Scoring Equivalent
Excellent 100 - 95% (Score of 7)
Acceptable 94 85% (Score
of 6)
Needs Improvement 84 79% (Score of 4 5)
Unacceptable 78% and Below (Score of 1 3)
C-21
111
To ensure all Concessionaires' locations meet and exceed the customer service
standards outlined, Concessionaires must score at least an acceptable rating of 6.
Outlined below is the standard for the rating system.
Unacceptable Rating 1-3
Any Concessionaire who receives an Unacceptable rating of 1 through 3 did not meet a
majority of the acceptable customer service or, first class concessions standards or
they failed to meet a significant level of performance. Additionally, any ratings of 1
through 3 are unacceptable and the Concessionaire must take corrective actions within
48 hours of notification and provide a written response to the Port Representative
within three (3) business days with an action plan addressing deficient areas to prevent
reoccurrence.
Needs Improvement Rating 4 5
Any Concessionaire who receives a Needs Improvement rating of 4 or 5 did not meet the
minimum acceptable customer service standards or first class concessions standards.
Any rating of 4 or 5 requires corrective action within 5-7 days and Concessionaire must
provide a written response to the Port Representative within three (3) business days
addressing the infractions with solutions to prevent further reoccurrences.
Acceptable 6
A Concessionaire who receives an Acceptable rating of 6 has satisfactorily met the
minimum acceptable customer service or first class concessions standards. An
acceptable rating of 6 does not require a written response; however, the Concessionaire
should address all noted problem areas.
Excellent 7
A Concessionaire who receives an Excellent rating of 7 has exceeded the minimum
acceptable customer service of first class concessions standards. This rating requires
no action on the part of the Concessionaire.
5.2 Comments and Complaints
Passengers may record comments of their Airport experience by utilizing any one of the
following methods: comment cards that are accessible throughout the Airport, the
Port's/Airport's website, comment/complaints sent to the King County Public Health
Office, and/or letters, emails or phone calls sent to the Port or Aviation Division's main
office. These comments (or complaints) are tracked and compiled through the Airport's
Customer Service Group in Airport Operations. The Customer Service group forwards all
complaints relating to Concessionaires to the Port Representative. The Port
Representative will in turn forward the customer complaint to the respective
Concessionaire within three (3) business days of receipt. The Concessionaire must
respond to all customer complaints within three (3) business days and forward a copy of
all correspondence to the Port Representative.
6. FOOD HANDLING
All Concessionaires are required to comply with all local health department and HACCP
standards regarding the proper and safe receiving, storage, preparation, and serving of all
food and beverage items. Concessionaire shall also ensure that all appropriate kitchen
personnel are ServSafe certified (or equivalent) and that the kitchen work force maintains a
C-22
112
minimum of two ServSafe instructors (or equivalent). In the event that the Concessionaire
is found to be non-compliant with the safe food handling practices per the public health
department, or similarly empowered public agency, the Concessionaire must immediately
notify the Port and provide the Port with a written incident report and subsequent action
plan to remedy the issues within 48-hours' notice of the violation. Failure to comply with
these standards will result in the imposition of liquidated damages as provided in Section
18, Table of Liquidated Damages. The Health Department and the Port Supplemental Health
Standards are provided in Exhibit F.
7. PEST CONTROL/UNIFIED PEST MANAGEMENT (UPM)/SANITATION
The standard for cleanliness at the Airport has been set at an optimal level, this includes
pest control activities, facility and equipment maintenance, housekeeping and best
practices. Concessionaire must implement and maintain aggressive internal controls that
will ensure total compliance with sanitation standards and the Unified Pest Management
Program implemented by the Airport.
Therefore, all Concessionaires must adhere to the following:
Each Concessionaire is required to participate in the Unified Pest Management
Program (UPM) as designated by the Port.
Each Concessionaire is required to participate in Sanitation Best Practices training
as designated by the Port.
Recommendations provided by the Unified Pest Management Program on
monthly reports including Sanitation Audits, Quality Assurance Audits and Pest
Control provider Audits must be addressed immediately.
UPM and Sanitation Audit findings may be provided via email to the local and
regional operations contacts for Concessionaires.
Depending on the severity of the offense, the Port may assess liquidated
damages and/or shut down the location for a period of time. Approval to reopen
can only be provided by the Senior Manager.
Supplemental Pest Control programs, paid for by the Concessionaire, must be
approved in advance by the Port Representative. Supplemental service treatments
must comply with the Port's mandated application methods.
Self-treatment or treatment by unlicensed personnel is prohibited.
Concessionaires must comply with all rules, regulations and directives provided by
the Port, the Pest Management Program, or Health Department authorities.
Concessionaire must maintain the standard of cleanliness required by the Port at
all times. Violations associated with cleanliness and sanitation standards will be
subject to liquidated damages as reflected on the fee schedule as outlined in
Section 18, Table of Liquidated Damages.
8. ENVIRONMENTAL AND WASTE REMOVAL
Concessionaires must separate and dispose of their trash, recycling, composting and used
cooking oil. Costs for this program are published in the Tariff and will be invoiced directly
to the Concessionaire. Concessionaire must request trash keys to access compactor areas
from the Port Representative at AVUTil@portseattle.org. In the event of a change to this
process, a written notification will be provided to the Concessionaire.
C-23
113
Disposal containers for trash, recycling, and composting and other Concessionairegenerated
waste materials are located at compactor rooms and loading docks throughout
the Airport. Trash build-up and/or compactor outages are to be reported immediately to
ACC at (206) 787-5229. If Concessionaire is responsible for the mess/spill/damage, or the
cross-contamination of recyclable or compostable collection containers, it is the
Concessionaire's duty to clean it up immediately. In the event that other clean up, repairs
or damage to compactors/containers/bins/used cooking oil tanks or surrounding areas are
caused by the Concessionaire or Concessionaire Representative and the repairs are
remedied by the Port, the Concessionaire will be invoiced directly. Trash violations are a
serious issue both for safety and Foreign Object Debris (FOD) on the airfield. Violations will
result in liquidated damages per Section 18, Table of Liquidated Damages.
At no time are Concessionaires permitted to transport or pile bags, boxes, cartons, or other
similar waste items, in an unsightly or unsafe manner.
8.1 Trash
All trash must be contained in appropriate bags and moved through the
Airport in covered receptacles. These receptacles must be cleaned daily.
Concessionaires are responsible for keeping all service corridors, hallways,
storage areas and elevators neat, clean and safe.
Stocking of pallets, crates, boxes, trash, shipping equipment, staging
equipment, etc. in hallways, pathways, or on the exterior of the premises is
strictly prohibited.
Concessionaires are responsible for sorting trash inside the proper trash
bags: Trash (Black Bags), Recyclables (Clear Bags), Food and Compostable
Products (Green Bags) as required by the Port. Concessionaires should not
fill the trash bags to capacity. Thin trash bags and bags filled beyond
capacity will tear thus creating a mess and unsanitary conditions. When an
unsanitary condition exists, the Concessionaire responsible will be required
to correct the problem and/or be invoiced for the clean-up services if
performed by the Port.
8.2 Recycling
Recyclables include clean and/or empty cardboard, cartons, paper, cups,
plastic containers and lids at least 3" in diameter, bagged plastic bags, cans,
bottles and jars (plastic, aluminum, or glass). Cardboard must be flattened
prior to depositing in Airport recycling compactors.
Glass bottles and jars must be rinsed and deposited in designated glass
recycling containers. Glass does not need to be in bags. Broken beverage
glasses are not recyclable.
8.3 Composting
Composting materials include food, uncoated food-soiled paper, napkins, cardboard,
coffee grounds, coffee filters, tea bags, and any approved compostable packaging.
C-24
114
Composting materials must be deposited directly in the composting bins or in
compostable bags approved by the Airport's compost service provider and then placed
in composting bins.
8.4 Waste Collection and Signage
Concessionaires providing food for consumption on or off premises using recyclable or
compostable "to-go" food service ware shall:
Provide conveniently located and clearly marked recycling, compost, and
garbage containers in back-of-house areas for employee use and in front-ofhouse
dining areas where customers may discard compostable or recyclable
food service ware and garbage.
Provide signage visible to patrons when picking up their orders or where self-
service customers pickup service ware, and on discard bins in dining areas
clearly identifying which service ware is recyclable, which is compostable
(including food scraps), and which is garbage.
Food and beverage concessionaires are encouraged to use signage best
practices and bins and labels provided by the Port of Seattle.
8.5 Used Cooking Oil (UCO)
The Concessionaire must purchase and utilize Port-designated containers to collect and
transport UCO to designated collection tanks located in the compactor rooms and
loading docks. Concessionaires must promptly clean any spills or leaks that occur
during transport including areas near UCO collection tanks. Concessionaires are not to
tamper with the functions of the collection tanks under any circumstance. Training on
proper use of the collection tanks is available for all Concessionaire employees.
8.6 Hazardous Materials/Waste
Concessionaires are responsible for properly managing the disposal, off Airport
property, of any hazardous materials or waste generated through their operations,
maintenance and construction activities. This includes, but is not limited to all types of
batteries, florescent light tubes, refrigerants, paints, stains, and other hazardous
chemicals.
Dumping of hazardous waste, construction materials, electronic scrap, universal waste,
and CFC containing appliances are not accepted at the Port. The Concessionaire is
responsible for scheduling the removal of these items. Violations associated with
improper dumping will be subject to liquidated damages as reflected on the fee
schedule as outlined in Section 18, Table of Liquidated Damages.
8.7 Training
C-25
115
Concessionaires are expected to participate in current and future recycling or other
environmental programs. Participation in these programs is coordinated through the
Airport's Environmental and Solid Waste Departments. Initial training,
education/outreach materials, and recycle bins for back-of-house areas in each
Concessionaire's units. Concessionaires are responsible for training their employees on
the proper use, sorting and disposal of all waste removal items at least annually or as
part of new employee orientation (depending on job function). The Port will offer
training on a quarterly basis as well as offer a train-the-trainer program for all
Concessionaires to ensure coverage for all new employees.
8.8 Food Donation Programs
The Port facilitates a Food Donation Program in partnership with the Airport's local
food bank and encourages Concessionaires to donate unsold food through this
program. Concessionaires desiring to find out more about participating in this program
can contact the Airport's Environmental Dept.
9. SAFETY AND SECURITY
Safety and security is everyone's business. All Airport tenants are required to follow the
Airport Rules and Regulations, Safety and Emergency requirements and procedures. This
information can be found at http://www.portseattle.org/Business/Airport-
Tenants/Pages/default.aspx. The following sections are in addition to and not in lieu of the
safety and security requirements:
9.1 Emergency Evacuation Plans
The Concessionaire is required to submit an individual Emergency Evacuation Plan and Map at
the opening of their location(s). Every Premise location is required to have a site specific
evacuation plan separate from the General Evacuation Map provided by the Port.
All maps must detail the evacuation path from the unit space and storage
areas a Concessionaire designated evacuation assembly point.
A written evacuation plan including emergency procedures must accompany
the map and be placed in both the back and front of house.
Front of House placement may be within a binder and all employees must be
trained on the evacuation process.
9.2 Secured Units
Concessionaires are responsible for locking gates and doors when a unit is closed for
business or construction. If the gates or doors are found open by any Airport personnel,
the Concessionaire is subject to the fines (as outlined in Section 18, Table of Liquidated
Damages).
9.3 Prohibited Items Log
C-26
116
Concessionaires are responsible for adhering to the guidelines set forth from the
Airport's Security department for the tracking and reporting, and addition or disposal of
prohibited items (knives, box cutters, large scissors, etc.).
9.4 Lost and Found
All items found in the Airport must be turned into the Airport's Lost and Found Office
within 24 hours. If occurrence happens after the Lost and Found Office's normal
business hours, then the return attempt must be made by the following business day.
9.5 Maintenance and Mid-Term Refurbishment Construction and Repairs
The Port has established standards for separating construction sites from other
portions of facilities that must continue in operation while construction is underway, as
well as for controlling potential negative effects of construction operations on normal
business. These standards are found in several locations including, but not necessarily
limited to, the Concessionaire Concept/Project Submittal, Design Submittal and
Construction Process, and the ADR Design Guidelines. Their applicable requirements
must be incorporated into all project construction documents and must be strictly
adhered to by all Concessionaires, their contractors, subs, and personnel and are
supplemental to all security and safety protocols enforced throughout the Airport.
All necessary and required life and health safety measures must be in place and
maintained to protect customers and employees as well as construction personnel.
All necessary and required security measures must be in place and maintained to
protect essential operations.
All necessary and required measures must be in place to minimize the negative
impacts of construction, of all types, on adjacent, ongoing operations and those
customers and employees involved in them.
All necessary permanent and temporary signage must be in place and maintained to
inform customers and employees about the construction that is occurring and how it
may impact their activities.
All proposals for construction or modifications to facilities or leased areas must be
submitted to the Port Representative for written approval.
All construction and modifications being requested must have proper permits
obtained.
All construction work within the Airport's property shall be ADA compliant.
Strict adherence to all applicable Airport procedures is mandatory on the part of all
parties, whether they are Airport staff, tenants, customers, passengers, design
professionals, contractors, vendors, etc.
Wet paint signs must be affixed while painting and removed prior to re-opening the
store for business. Handwritten signs are strictly prohibited in public view.
All construction waste including, excess chemicals or other hazardous materials
damaged equipment, fixtures and furnishings, must be removed from the site as part
of the project.
C-27
117
9.5.1 Construction and Repairs Safety Protocols
No construction-related operations, inside or outside of the project's vicinity, must
expose either customers or employees to hazardous conditions that could cause
them to slip, fall or be hit by protruding or falling debris or construction materials.
Temporary walls/barricades at the storefront will be installed by the Port.
Concessionaire and its contractors must keep them in good physical
condition with no holes, dents, marks, graffiti, unauthorized postings, tears
or other aspects, which are unsightly, compromise the intended purpose, or
could be hazardous to human contact. Any damage will be at a cost to the
Concessionaire.
New, temporary evacuation plans must be provided by the contractor and
posted in appropriate locations to replace existing plans at any time that
existing paths of egress are changed temporarily by construction.
Life safety systems that are affected by demolition and construction must be
maintained in operation at all times. Otherwise, appropriate fire watches or
other approved procedures/measures must be maintained until such systems
are tested, found to be acceptable by the Fire Department and returned to
full service.
Floors within and adjacent to construction sites must be maintained dry and
free of liquid spills and water to prevent slipping and falling, throughout the
course of construction.
No shutdowns of any systems shall be permitted unless an approved
Shutdown Request Form has been obtained from Facilities & Infrastructure,
Maintenance and/or the Engineering Department.
9.5.2 Construction and Repairs Security Protocols
Door installations in temporary walls/barricades will be limited to the
minimum possible number, be as inconspicuous as possible, and will have
appropriate locks approved by the Airport in order to maintain safe, secure
conditions and prevent unauthorized access to construction sites and
construction traffic into non-construction areas.
No existing security measures shall be modified or otherwise compromised
without the prior establishment of alternate security measures approved by
all the affected parties.
Construction workers must be required to possess and display the
appropriate SIDA badges and wear required PPE at all times.
10. INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
The Port owns and operates the Airport's free Wi-Fi system and fiber network consisting of
voice and data. The Concessionaire is responsible for installing their own
telecommunications (data and communication) systems inside the unit from the Port
demarcation box.
C-28
118
11. EMPLOYEE SERVICES
11.1 ID Badges
All Concessionaires and third party contractors will need to go through the badging
process to operate at the airport. The Credential Center is open Monday-Thursday from
6am-3:30pm and Friday from 6am-10:30am and 11:30am-3pm. Each employee will be
required to complete Airport Security Training prior to receiving their badge. The Badge
Training Center hours are Monday-Thursday from 8am-4pm.
To schedule badge appointments, training, and additional information regarding the
badging process, please visit the Credential Center website at
http://www.portseattle.org/Employee-Services/ID-Badges/Pages/default.aspx.
*It is important to check the website for any changes in the hours of operations for both
offices as they are subject to change.
11.2 Parking
Concessionaires are allowed one complimentary parking passes per lease agreement for
the Airport Parking Garage. These passes are ordered through Employee Parking
Department. Monthly parking passes as well as employee transportation options can be
found at http://www.portseattle.org/employee-services/employee-parking/
As of January 1, 2018, the employee shuttle bus runs 24 hours a day, seven days a week
(including holidays).
11.3 Employment Opportunities
HELP WANTED signs are not allowed to be posted within or outside your Premises at
any time.
For new employment facilitation please contact Airport Jobs at (206) 787-7501 to assist
with job fairs, outreach and job postings for your company. Please reference Exhibit C,
Employee Continuity Pool Overview, for additional information regarding the assistance
that Airport Jobs provides.
C-29
119
EXHIBIT D
Pricing Policy
Pricing Policy for Concessionaires
at
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport
D-1
120
Table of Contents
1. STREET PRICING................................................................................................................. 3
1.1 Definition Generally ....................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Equivalent Items ............................................................................................................. 3
1.3 Comparable Business Locations ..................................................................................... 3
2. POLICY ADMINISTRATION .............................................................................................. 4
3. ESTABLISHMENT OF STREET PRICES ........................................................................... 4
3.1 Baseline Pricing .............................................................................................................. 4
3.2 Pricing Adjustments........................................................................................................ 4
3.3 Annual Reporting ............................................................................................................ 4
3.4 Pricing Review................................................................................................................ 5
4. ADDITIONAL PRICING GUIDELINES.............................................................................. 5
4.1 Branded Goods................................................................................................................ 5
4.2 Pre-Priced Books and Periodicals. .................................................................................. 6
4.3 Auctions, bankruptcy, close out, distress, liquidation, or going-out-of-business sales. . 6
5. PRICING PROMOTIONS ..................................................................................................... 6
6. POSTING PRICES ................................................................................................................. 6
7. POLICY COMPLIANCE ....................................................................................................... 6
D-2
121
It is the policy of The Port of Seattle (the "Port") to require "street pricing" by all
Concessionaires at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport ("Sea-Tac"). The purpose of this policy
is to ensure that prices charged to Sea-Tac travelers for food, beverages, products and services
are comparable to those charged at similar non-airport locations and establishments.
SECTION 1 STREET PRICING
Definition Generally
The "street price" of an item is the price charged for an equivalent item at comparable business
locations in the Seattle-Tacoma area. In determining the "street price" for an item sold at Sea-
Tac, the Port will be guided by the following considerations:
For any menu items, products and/or services offered by a Concessionaire with a trade
name commonly recognized by the public (e.g., Burger King, TCBY and Subway
Sandwich), the price charged at the Sea-Tac location shall be within the range of prices
charged for such items at up to three comparable business locations operating under the
same trade name in the Seattle-Tacoma area.
For any menu items, products and/or services offered by a Concessionaire that does not
operate under a trade name commonly recognized by the public, the price charged at Sea-
Tac shall be within the range of prices charged for equivalent items at up to three
comparable business locations in the Seattle-Tacoma area.
For any menu item, product or service offered by a Concessionaire that is not readily
available from or sold by any comparable business locations in the Seattle-Tacoma area,
the price charged shall be within the range of prices charged for either similar items sold
from up to three comparable business locations in the Seattle-Tacoma area or equivalent
items sold from up to three comparable business locations outside the Seattle-Tacoma
area.
In all cases, the equivalent items and comparable business locations shall be subject to the
mutual agreement of the Port and the Concessionaire; however, if the parties are unable to reach
an agreement for the comparable locations or prices provided, the Port shall have the right to
identify the equivalent items, select the comparable locations, and/or establish the price.
Equivalent Items
For the purposes of establishing the street price of an item, comparisons will be made with
products or services of the exact same size and quality. Differences in size or quality of a product
or service will, all other things being equal, be considered a price differential.
Comparable Business Locations
Comparable business locations are establishments selling similar products or services in active
and robust retail locations like shopping centers or commercial districts. Businesses and
locations that are partially or fully protected from competition (such as hotel lobby shops or
sports arenas) or that operate using an off-price or discount pricing structure are not comparable
locations.
D-3
122
SECTION 2 POLICY ADMINISTRATION
Enforcement of this policy falls to the Aviation Business Development Department. In
administering this policy, the Department is responsible for:
Disseminating information about the policy to both current and interested
Concessionaires
Monitoring compliance with the policy
Enforcing compliance with the policy
SECTION 3 ESTABLISHMENT OF STREET PRICES
Baseline Pricing
No later than sixty (60) days prior to the expected Rent Commencement Date, each
Concessionaire must submit to the Port for its approval a list of at least three (3) comparable
business locations in the Seattle-Tacoma area from which comparable pricing information will
be obtained. Concessionaire should ensure that there is a comparable product or service among
the comparable business locations for each product or service provided at Sea-Tac. Once
approved, these locations will be used as a basis for price comparisons for equivalent items.
Concessionaire shall also submit to the Port by the same deadline a list of: (i) all menu items,
products and/or services to be offered from Concessionaire's premises, (ii) the price that
Concessionaire proposes to charge for each item, product or service, and (iii) the equivalent item,
product, or service and its price from the comparable business location(s) on which
Concessionaire relied to establish the street price.
This list shall specifically be subject to the Port's review and approval. However, the Port is not
required to review every line item in the list, and the failure to object to the price proposed for a
particular item at the time the list is originally submitted shall not prevent the Port from later
objecting to a price that it reasonably determines is not a street price.
Pricing Adjustments
If the Concessionaire proposes to change any of its items or prices, Concessionaire must submit
to the Port, for its prior review and approval, the proposed changes. Concessionaire may also
propose to change its comparable business locations if, for example, the establishment is no
longer comparable or closes. Concessionaire must submit a justification for any proposed
change. The justification for the street price should generally follow the list format required for
Concessionaire's initial price approval. Concessionaire may not change its prices without prior
written approval from the Port.
Annual Reporting
Each Concessionaire must submit an annual Pricing Report that provides evidence of its ongoing
compliance with this Pricing Policy. The annual pricing report must include a price comparison
for each concession unit operated by the Concessionaire. However, prices do not need to be
D-4
123
submitted for all menu items, products and/or services. Instead, the annual Pricing Report only
needs to contain price information for the following items:
Type of Concession Items for Annual Price Comparison
Specialty Retail Top 25 products sold
Convenience Retail/Newsstand Top 10 newspapers/magazines/books sold
Top 10 gifts/souvenirs/toys sold
Top 10 packaged snacks/candy sold
Top 5 health & beauty aids sold
Top 5 travel/business accessories sold
Duty Free/Duty Paid Shop Top 5 liquor products sold
Top 5 accessories sold
Top 5 souvenir/gift/confectionary sold
Top 10 perfume/cosmetics sold
Financial Services and Foreign Currency Top 5 products sold
Exchange
Food Service Top 25 food items sold
Top 5 non-alcoholic beverages sold
Top 10 alcoholic beverages sold (if applicable)
The Port will generally establish a due date for the annual Pricing Report relative to the date on
which the initial pricing is approved; however, in the absence of an agreement on such date,
Concessionaire shall submit the annual Pricing Report by December 31 of each calendar year.
The Port will generally perform price checks within 30 days of the report due date.
Pricing Review
The Port may perform periodic price reviews at its discretion at any time by either Port
employees or third parties (e.g., "secret shoppers"). In addition, the Port may require
Concessionaire to submit a comprehensive pricing report at any time on fifteen (15) days' notice,
and Concessionaire agrees to submit such report to the Port.
SECTION 4 ADDITIONAL PRICING GUIDELINES
The Port has separate pricing guidelines for certain branded goods and pre-priced books and
periodicals.
Branded Goods.
If Concessionaire operates a branded concept where prices are set by the brand, Concessionaire
must use the prices set by the brand. Concessionaire must provide evidence of the brand pricing.
If a brand changes prices, Concessionaire must provide the new prices to the Port prior to
changing prices in the Airport location.
D-5
124
Pre-Priced Books and Periodicals.
The prices for newspapers, books, and periodicals that have a publisher's suggested retail price
in U.S. dollars printed on the outside of the item do not need to be verified through the
comparable pricing process. Concessionaire should charge the publisher's suggested retail price
as marked at Sea-Tac.
Auctions, bankruptcy, close out, distress, liquidation, or going-out-of-business sales.
There shall be no auction, fire bankruptcy, close out, distress, liquidation or going-out-ofbusiness
sales conducted in the Premises; provided, however, that the Port may not preclude
periodic seasonal, promotional or clearance sales, nor shall the Premises operate as an
outlet/surplus store. In no event shall Concessionaire conduct any insolvency sales from the
Premises.
SECTION 5 PRICING PROMOTIONS
If the Concessionaire operates under a national or local brand, and this national or local brand is
promoting a "special" product or price promotion that is advertised through audio, video, or print
media in the Seattle-Tacoma MSA, then the Concessionaire shall offer that promotional product
or price at the Premises during the same promotional period. If the Concessionaire operates
under a national or local brand and offers a "value menu" (or other such similar program that
promotes a number of items at a reduced price), the Concessionaire shall offer a similar
promotion at Sea-Tac. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Concessionaire may request the
written approval of the Port to "opt-out" of a national or local promotion if it believes in good
faith that participation in the promotion is not economically feasible due to certain required
equipment or facilities not being available without a further investment by the Concessionaire,
which is not required by this Agreement. The Port will determine, in its sole discretion, whether
to allow the Concessionaire to opt-out, and Concessionaire agrees to be bound by the decision
made by the Port.
SECTION 6 POSTING PRICES
Prices and charges for all items sold or offered from the Premises shall be conspicuously
displayed in a manner approved by the Port. In no event shall the price charged exceed an
advertised price or the price marked on the item being sold.
SECTION 7 POLICY COMPLIANCE
The Port will monitor Concessionaire's operations for compliance with the Pricing Policy. If the
Port determines that a Concessionaire is not complying with the policy, the Port will provide
written notice of the non-compliance. Concessionaire will have 72 hours from receipt of the
notice to correct the prices and bring them into compliance. If Concessionaire does not correct
the prices within the time provided, Concessionaire will be subject to liquidated damages as
provided in the Lease and Concession Agreement.
If, in the opinion of the Port the prices or product quality does not meet the requirements of this
Pricing Policy, the prices, serving portions or product quality shall be adjusted accordingly.
D-6
125
Addendum to Pricing Policy for Concessionaires
Street Pricing Plus
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Pricing Policy to which this addendum is
attached, the Port Commission approved a temporary, conditional increase to Concessionaire's
pricing on November 24, 2015 as revised on June 11, 2019. This short-term amendment to the
Port's street pricing policy allows Airport Dining and Retail (ADR) tenants to increase their
prices over the otherwise applicable street price as follows from December 1, 2015 through
December 31, 2019:
12/01/2015 12/31/2016: up to 10% over street prices
01/01/2017 12/31/2017: up to 7.5% over street prices
01/01/2018 12/31/2018: up to 5% over street prices
01/01/2019 12/31/2019: up to 2.5% over street prices
01/01/2020 12/31/2020: up to 5% over street prices
01/01/2021 forward: up to 10% over street prices
Concessionaires will only be allowed to increase prices if they meet certain criteria. The criteria
Concessionaires must satisfy are set forth in the attached Frequently Asked Questions document
published by the Port in December 2015.
If a Concessionaire seeks to implement "street pricing plus" as allowed by this addendum, the
Concessionaire shall, in connection with any required submissions under the Port's Pricing
Policy, specifically identify the street price for the particular menu item(s), product(s) and/or
service(s) and separately identify the amount the Concessionaire proposes to charge based on
this short-term, conditional increase over street prices.
D-7
126
EXHIBIT E
- Links to Key Port Standards -
Leasing & Tenant Resources: https://www.portseattle.org/sea-tac/leasing-tenant-resources
Click on:
Tenant Construction and Design References for
ADR Preventative Maintenance Program Manual
Tenant Design and Construction Process Manual
Design Guidelines
Design Standard
Airport Tariffs
Rules and Regulations for Sea-Tac
Airport Tenants, Sea-Tac Environmental Resources
E-1
127
EXHIBIT F
Schedule of Liquidated Damages
Schedule 1 Liquidated Damages Schedule 2 Liquidated Damages
First Occurrence $250.00 First Occurrence $500.00
Second Occurrence $500.00 Second Occurrence $1,000.00
Third and Subsequent $750.00 Third and Subsequent $1,500.00
Occurrence Occurrence
The specified liquidated damages amounts are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other charge or amount that may
be due for the conduct giving rise to the violation. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, this includes late
fees and interest as well as fines set forth in the Sea-Tac Rules and Regulations or other Port Standards.
Schedule 1 Violations Schedule 2 Violations
Reporting Standards, including: Food Handling Standards1
Monthly Reports Maintenance & Repair Standards2
Annual Report Pest Control Standards2
Post Construction Reports Safety & Security Standards1
Storage Standards2 "First Class" Standards2
Signage Standards2 Customer Service Standards2
Other Operating Standards2 Hours of Operation Standards1
Pricing Standards2 Delivery & Distribution Standards2
Environmental & Waste Removal Standards2
1 Subject to assessment per day for each day of the same occurrence (i.e. for a continuing violation, the first day and
each additional day thereafter that the violation is not remedied).
2 Subject to assessment per day for continuing violation that is not remedied within three (3) days of the date on
which liquidated damages are first assessed (i.e. for a continuing violation, the first day and each additional day on
or after the fourth day that the violation is not remedied).
F-1
128
EXHIBIT G
Additional Non-Discrimination Covenants
1. Compliance with Regulations: The contractor (hereinafter includes consultants) will
comply with the acts and the regulations ("Acts and Regulations") relative to Nondiscrimination
in Federally-assisted programs of the U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Aviation Administration, as they may be amended from time to time, which are
herein incorporated by reference and made a part of this contract.
2. Non-discrimination: The contractor, with regard to the work performed by it during the
contract, will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, or national origin in the
selection and retention of subcontractors, including procurements of materials and leases
of equipment. The contractor will not participate directly or indirectly in the
discrimination prohibited by the Acts and Regulations, including employment practices
when the contract covers any activity, project, or program set forth in Appendix B of 49
CFR part 21.
3. Solicitations for Subcontracts, Including Procurements of Materials and
Equipment: In all solicitations, either by competitive bidding, or negotiation made by the
contractor for work to be performed under a subcontract, including procurements of
materials, or leases of equipment, each potential subcontractor or supplier will be notified
by the contractor of the contractor's obligations under this contract and the Acts and
Regulations relative to non-discrimination on the grounds of race, color, or national
origin.
4. Information and Reports: The contractor will provide all information and reports
required by the Acts and Regulations, and related directives and will permit access to its
books, records, accounts, other sources of information, and its facilities as may be
determined by the Recipient or the Federal Aviation Administration to be pertinent to
ascertain compliance with the Acts and Regulations and instructions. Where any
information required of a contractor is in the exclusive possession of another who fails or
refuses to furnish the information, the contractor will so certify to the Recipient or the
Federal Aviation Administration, as appropriate, and will set forth what efforts it has
made to obtain the information.
5. Sanctions for Noncompliance: In the event of a contractor's noncompliance with the
Nondiscrimination provisions of this contract, the Recipient will impose such contract
sanctions as it or the Federal Aviation Administration may determine to be appropriate,
including, but not limited to:
a. withholding payments to the contractor under the contract until the contractor
complies; and/or
b. cancelling, terminating, or suspending a contract, in whole or in part.
6. Incorporation of Provisions: The contractor will include the provisions of paragraphs
one through six in every subcontract, including procurements of materials and leases of
equipment, unless exempt by the Acts, the Regulations and directives issued pursuant
thereto. The contractor will take action with respect to any subcontract or procurement as
G-1
129
the Recipient or the Federal Aviation Administration may direct as a means of enforcing
such provisions including sanctions for noncompliance. Provided, that if the contractor
becomes involved in, or is threatened with litigation by a subcontractor, or supplier
because of such direction, the contractor may request the Recipient to enter into any
litigation to protect the interests of the Recipient. In addition, the contractor may request
the United States to enter into the litigation to protect the interests of the United States.
G-2
130
131
EXHIBIT H
Pertinent Non-Discrimination Authorities
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq., 78 stat. 252), (prohibits
discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin); and 49 CFR part 21.
The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, (42
U.S.C. 4601), (prohibits unfair treatment of persons displaced or whose property has been
acquired because of Federal or Federal-aid programs and projects);
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (29 U.S.C. 794 et seq.), as amended,
(prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability); and 49 CFR part 27;
The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.), (prohibits
discrimination on the basis of age);
Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, (49 USC 471, Section 47123), as amended,
(prohibits discrimination based on race, creed, color, national origin, or sex);
The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, (PL 100-209), (Broadened the scope, coverage and
applicability of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Age Discrimination Act of 1975
and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, by expanding the definition of the terms
"programs or activities" to include all of the programs or activities of the Federal-aid
recipients, sub-recipients and contractors, whether such programs or activities are Federally
funded or not);
Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibit discrimination on the
basis of disability in the operation of public entities, public and private transportation
systems, places of public accommodation, and certain testing entities (42 U.S.C. 12131
12189) as implemented by Department of Transportation regulations at 49 CFR parts 37 and
38;
The Federal Aviation Administration's Non-discrimination statute (49 U.S.C. 47123)
(prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, and sex);
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations, which ensures discrimination against minority
populations by discouraging programs, policies, and activities with disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations;
Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English
Proficiency, and resulting agency guidance, national origin discrimination includes
discrimination because of limited English proficiency (LEP). To ensure compliance with
Title VI, you must take reasonable steps to ensure that LEP persons have meaningful access
to your programs (70 Fed. Reg. at 74087 to 74100);
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended, which prohibits you from
discriminating because of sex in education programs or activities (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq).
H-1
132
I-1
133
RETURN TO AGENDA
J-1
134
COMMISSION
AGENDA MEMORANDUM Item No. 8f
ACTION ITEM Date of Meeting September 14, 2021
DATE: August 27, 2021
TO: Stephen P. Metruck, Executive Director
FROM: Adrian Down, Environmental Program Manager, AV Environment and Sustainability
Peter Lindsay, Operations Program Manager
SUBJECT: Request to Amend Agreement with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to
Include Transportation Modeling
Amount of this request: $200,000
Total estimated project cost: NA
ACTION REQUESTED
Request Commission authorization for the Executive Director to amend the scope of an existing
interlocal agreement (ILA) with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to include
transportation modeling to support SEA's ground transportation goals and Century Agenda
environmental goals.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Port has an existing ILA with NREL, a not-for-profit, federally funded agency. The ILA was
approved by Commission on April 27, 2021. This action is for approval to amend this existing
agreement with NREL to add $200,000 of work to be carried out over an approximate 1-year
period.
Airports and seaports look to NREL for decision support and actionable insights to inform their
long-term facility, infrastructure, and energy planning efforts. NREL has helped other major
transportation airports and seaports like Los Angeles World Airports, Dallas Fort Worth
International Airport, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and the Port of Long Beach
understand the full range of options for achieving ambitious energy-saving goals, improving
regional air quality, and optimizing the movement of people and goods.
JUSTIFICATION
This ILA amendment will allow the Port to work with NREL to develop transportation modeling
essential for SEA's Ground Transportation Access Plan (GTAP) and help meet the Port's Century
Agenda goals to reduce carbon emissions and objectives established in Commission's SEA ground
transportation (GT) policy directive (Policy Resolution No. 3759).
Template revised January 10, 2019.
135
COMMISSION AGENDA Action Item No. 8f Page 2 of 5
Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
This partnership provides access to world-leading technology and transportation integration that
isn't available elsewhere. In addition, NREL explicitly does not offer its services where commercial
consultants or engineering firms can do the work.
The Port recognizes that the Policy Resolution goal of reducing low-occupancy private vehicle
trips to the airport may require new approaches in SEA's GT operations, policies, and facilities,
all of which can influence how passengers and employees chose to get to the Airport. Ground
transportation initiatives can have complex tradeoffs between revenue generation,
environmental performance, cost, and customer service. As a result of this complexity, NREL
expertise is warranted to understand the range of ground transportation options and their
potential impacts on Port revenue, emissions, and customer service.
Diversity in Contracting
Given that NREL is uniquely positioned to provide this service, we did not set aspirational goals
but will leverage NRELs expertise to evaluate equity in the transportation analyses. NREL is
committed to being a world-class leader in workforce diversity, equity, and continues to develop
numerous studies that identify equitable and economic local solutions to the climate crisis. For
example, their LA100 study demonstrates how the City of Los Angeles will meet its renewable
electricity goals with specific environmental justice actions.
DETAILS
If approved, this ILA modification will enable the Port to develop a partnership with NREL's
Athena team. Athena specializes in using data-driven statistical modeling to help airports adapt
to transformative technologies that support ambitious energy goals. Athena has worked with
Dallas Fort Worth International Airport to develop sophisticated models of current and future
mobility requirements.
The primary goal of this work with the Athena team is to create a model that predicts changes in
passenger behavior in response to potential changes in the Port's GT operations, policies, and
infrastructure. This model is essential for evaluating the potential implications of implementing
access fees on private vehicles accessing SEA roadways, one of the key priority strategies
identified in the GTAP report.
The resulting passenger mode choice model will also be used to identify impacts beyond access
fees, such as:
Analyzing the effects of potential changes to fee structures for parking or other GT
products to maximize revenue
Helping to identify opportunities to influence passenger behavior to achieve the goals
included in Resolution 3759 and the Port's Century Agenda of limiting private vehicle
curbside use to 30% of passengers and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from all
sources, including GT, 50% by 2030.
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
136
COMMISSION AGENDA Action Item No. 8f Page 3 of 5
Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
Scope of Work
The primary goal of this project is to create a price-based, ground transportation model that can
predict SEA passengers' mode choice changes in response to changes in pricing, travel time, or
other aspects of airport trips. Passengers will be segmented into groups to account for
differences in travel behavior between resident and non-resident travelers as well as business
and leisure travelers. The model will initially be based on existing data sources, including SEA's
enplaning passenger survey, and will be updated as new information becomes available. The
model will be structured so that it can easily be updated with additional survey information in
the future if the Port choses to conduct additional passenger surveys.
The scope will follow these general tasks and deliverables:
(1) Data gathering and review
(2) Model construction and testing
(3) Develop policy evaluation tool
(4) Analyze policy scenarios
(5) Final report
Schedule
Task/Deliverable Date
Commission ILA modification authorization Q3 2021
Data Gathering Q4 2021
Model construction and testing Q4 2021-Q1 2022
Policy scenario analysis Q2-Q3 2022
Final report Q4 2022
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED
Alternative 1 Do not support an NREL partnership.
Cost Implications: $0
Pros:
(1) Cost savings.
Cons:
(1) If this model is not constructed, the Port will not be able to preemptively evaluate
potential GT program options including access fees. This makes the risk of implementing
new or modified GT programs much greater and reduces the likelihood of success.
(2) The Port may miss opportunities to increase revenue that the model could identify
(3) Port will not meet Century Agenda or Policy Resolution 3759 goals.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
137
COMMISSION AGENDA Action Item No. 8f Page 4 of 5
Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
Alternative 2 Work with a private consultant to construct a passenger mode choice model
Cost Implications: $350,000
Pros:
(1) Work could be completed under existing Port contracting mechanisms, although
additional funding would still be required.
Cons:
(1) Product may not be comparable and would not utilize NREL's industry-leading expertise
and innovative research background.
(2) Likely higher cost than NREL alternative.
(3) May require delaying model construction one or more years until additional passenger
surveys can be conducted.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 3 Leverage the existing NREL partnership and expertise to conduct the work
Cost Implications: $200,000
Pros:
(1) This work will create a model that will analyze options for reducing vehicle trips and
greenhouse gas emissions at SEA Airport and is essential for moving forward with other
priority areas identified in GTAP.
(2) Supports Century Agenda and Commission Policy Resolution 3759 goals
(3) Potential to identify opportunities to increase non-aeronautical revenue
Cons:
(1) Financial cost
This is the recommended alternative.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Annual Budget Status and Source of Funds
The 2021 budget for the addition to the ILA requested here is $75,000 and was approved as a
contingent budget request in 2021. The remaining $125,000 is requested as part of the 2022
Aviation Environment and Sustainability operating budget. The total for this project is $200,000.
The budget for the existing, previously approved ILA (to analyze energy and technology
alternatives for Port facilities) is $127,000 from the Energy and Sustainability Committee Fund,
and $23,000 from the Environment and Sustainability Center of Expertise operating budget, for
a total of $150,000.
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST
(1) Cover page and appendices to be added to ILA
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
138
COMMISSION AGENDA Action Item No. 8f Page 5 of 5
Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
(2) Existing ILA signed by Commission on April 27, 2021
(3) Presentation
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS
April 27, 2021 The Commission authorized the Executive Director to enter into an interlocal
agreement with NREL to analyze energy and technology alternatives for both aviation and
maritime facilities to help meet Century Agenda environmental and energy goals.
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
139
Strategic Partnership Projects
Funds-In Agreement No. FIA-21-17442
Modification No. 1
Contractor: Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC
Operator of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Sponsor: Port of Seattle
Period of Performance: 5/11/21 through 8/11/22
This modification adds scope and $200,000 to the value of the
agreement.
Except as stated herein, all terms and conditions of the Funds-In Agreement shall remain in full force
and effect without change. In the event of any conflict between the terms of the subject Agreement and
this Modification, the provisions of this Modification shall take precedence.
Block 3, Financial is hereby amended as follows:
Cost Estimate Modification No. 1 $200,000.00
DOE Administrative Charge Modification No. 1 $0.00
TOTAL Modification No. 1 $200,000.00
Prior Cost Estimate: $150,000.00
Prior DOE Administrative Charge $0.00
Total Cost to Sponsor $350,000.00
Block 6, Agreement Terms and Conditions is modified to reflect the addition of "Appendix A
Statement of Work for Modification 1 to Funds-In Agreement No. FIA-21-17442" and "Appendix C-1
Rights in Technical Data for Modification 1"
"Funds-In AgreementFIA-2117442 Appendix A Statement of Work for Modification 1" is
hereby added to the Agreement.
"Funds-In Agreement-FIA-21-17442-1 Appendix C-1 Rights in Technical Data for Modification
1" is hereby added to the Agreement. This Appendix C-1 is only applicable to the work under
Modification 1. Appendix C-3 of the original agreement remains applicable to the original scope of work.
The parties have indicated their acceptance of this Modification between Sponsor and Contractor by
signature below.
Accepted: Accepted:
Sponsor Contractor
By: By:
Name: Name: Anne Miller
Title: Title: __Director Technology Transfer______
Date: Date:
FIA-mod (2020) 1 of 1
140
Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC
manager and operator of the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Strategic Partnership Projects
Funds-In AgreementFIA-21-17442
Appendix A Statement of Work for Modification 1
Notice: By signing this Agreement, the Sponsor acknowledges in advance that its entity name and the
title and non-proprietary description of the project are available for public release by the Contractor
without further notice.
I. Project Title:
Passenger travel mode choice modeling
II. Non-Proprietary Description of Project:
Provide technical assistance to develop a mode choice simulator for passenger travel to
and from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.
III. Background:
Parties to this agreement are:
Contractor: Alliance for Sustainable Energy, operator of the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory under Prime Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 for the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE). Contractor has a facility at 15013 Denver
West Parkway, Golden, CO 80401.
Sponsor: Port of Seattle (Port). Sponsor has a facility at 2711 Alaskan Way, Seattle,
WA 98121. The Seattle -Tacoma International Airport (SEA) is a facility of
the Port of Seattle.
IV. Statement of Work - Task Descriptions, Deliverables, and Estimated Completion Dates:
Task 1 Mode Choice Modeling
The Ground Transportation Access Plan (GTAP) is SEA's programmatic planning
initiative that seeks to balance and address policy challenges related to ground
transportation at SEA, namely (a) greenhouse gas emission reduction, (b) congestion
reduction, (c) ground transportation revenues, (d) customer choice and (e) equity. These
policy priorities were formally adopted by Commission in June 2019 (Resolution 3759).
One of the priority strategies in the 2021 and 2022 GTAP work plans is to study the
potential implications of implementing access fees on private vehicles accessing SEA
roadways. To accurately predict and measure the potential effects of access fees on
FIA Appendix - SOW Mod (4-22-2021) 1
141
passenger mode choice, it is necessary to develop a passenger survey-based Mode
Choice Simulator model (MCS).
A robust passenger MCS could have benefits beyond consideration of access fees, such
as:
Analyzing the effects of potential changes to fee structures for parking or other
ground transportation (GT) products to maximize revenue
Helping to identify opportunities to influence passenger behavior to achieve the
goals included in Resolution 3759 and the Port's Century Agenda of limiting private
vehicle curbside use to 30% of passengers and reducing greenhouse gas
emissions from all sources, including GT, 50% by 2030.
Project Description
The primary goal of this project is to create a model that can predict SEA passengers'
mode choice changes in response to changes in the pricing, travel time, or other aspects
of airport trips. Passengers will be segmented into groups to account for differences in
travel behavior between resident and non-resident travelers as well as business and
leisure travelers. The model will initially be based on existing data sources, including
SEA's enplaning passenger survey. The model will be structured so that it can easily be
updated with additional survey information in the future if the SEA choses to conduct
additional passenger surveys.
To this end, NREL will:
1.1. Data Preparation: communicate with SEA on the data sources needed for the
mode choice modeling work, i.e., the relevant variables collected by the enplane
passenger surveys (EPS), and then acquire/process supplemental data required
alongside the survey data for modeling. This will include travel times for all
modes available to each respondent, and the collation of relevant cost and
headway data for airport access modes.
1.2. Model Specification: develop segmented models by trip purpose and resident
status (e.g., resident business, resident non-business, non-resident business,
non-resident non-business) and determine the appropriate model format based
on prior modeling efforts and model fit based on input data. The models will
include primary attributes such as time and cost and may include additional
explanatory variables such as bags, party size, age, income, etc.
1.3. Review of Model Fit and Iteration: review the model output and consider viability
of the results for practical applications and policy testing. This is an iterative
process through which any issues or anomalies in the statistical model can be
debugged. Multiple model specifications and frameworks will be tested and the
one with the best performance will be recommended for use.
1.4. Model Sensitivity Analyses: calibrate the resultant model to any available recent,
accurate mode share data from the airport and perform various sensitivity
analyses and discuss with the SEA team on the intuitive interpretations of the
model estimates.
1.5. Interfaces with Other Models: advise the SEA staff on the integration of the
access mode choice models with other SEA specific modeling tools and PSRC
regional travel demand models.
1.6. Model dashboard: develop a dashboard based on the model developed in tasks
1.1 through 1.4 and any other relevant data sources that allows the SEA to
analyze how potential changes in policies, operations, or capital projects could
affect passenger mode split in the future.
FIA Appendix - SOW Mod (4-22-2021) 2
142
1.7. Passive and Future Survey Advising: advise on the sampling and data collection
along with the specific questionnaire design of the passive survey, should the
SEA team decide that the mode-choice related passive data collection is
necessary. The NREL team will advise the SEA on modifications to
existing/future relevant surveys to maximize future modeling opportunities.
Data Requirements
Enplaning passenger survey data
Pricing information for GT modes (e.g., airporters, taxis, etc.)
Data on ground truth mode share, for example aggregate volume and average
vehicle occupation monthly or quarterly for 2019 for services such as
Transportation Network Companies (TNC), taxi, rental car and airport shuttle
Total enplaned passenger volume, monthly or quarterly for 2019
Data on business/leisure travel ratio
Task 1 Deliverables Table
Task Deliverable Schedule
1.1 Data preparation List of data requested Month 1
1.2 Model specification a) Model scripts Month 2
b) Demonstrate model to SEA staff Month 2
1.3 Model fit and iteration Model methodology memo Month 3
1.4 Model sensitivity analyses Brief memo describing: Month 5
a) goodness of fit metrics, including
uncertainty range
b) summarizing model fit
methodology and results
c) Model sensitivity analysis
1.5 Interfaces with other N/A TBD
models
1.6 Model dashboard Model dashboard TBD
1.7 Survey advising N/A TBD
Task 2: Sustainable Infrastructure Advisory Support
Project Description
In parallel to technical tasks, NREL will be available for consultation in an advisory role for
discussions related to sustainable infrastructure and long-term planning related to the
integration of energy-efficient and renewable energy technologies.
To this end, NREL will:
2.1. Work with SEA staff to identify an advisory mechanism and meeting framing
suitable for informing ongoing discussions at the Port.
2.2. Support SEA staff with references and connections to research staff able to
advise on particular technical integration and planning questions.
2.3. Attend meetings, as needed quarterly, in support of long-term planning
discussions at the SEA.
FIA Appendix - SOW Mod (4-22-2021) 3
143
Task 3: Policy Evaluation Tool
Project Description
Leveraging the SEA access mode choice models developed in Task 1, a policy evaluation
tool with a friendly user interface will be developed under this task. This tool will allow
flexible inputs, primarily featuring an access mode choice simulator, and will generate
outputs in formats that are intuitive to the users at the SEA and that allow SEA staff to
evaluate various ground transportation policies.
SEA and NREL agree that NREL will publish any software created under Task 3 under an
open-source software license.
To this end, NREL will:
3.1. Design Plan: draft a tool design plan based on discussion with SEA staff on
needs, requirements, software preferences, maintainability, existing solutions,
and other issues. The SEA will review the plan and work with NREL to finalize
the plan. Once finalized, the tools will be posted on an easily accessible
repository such as GitHub for future access and maintainability.
3.2. Multi-Criteria Evaluation (MCE) benefits calculator: investigate potential solutions
for a multi-criteria evaluation cost benefit analysis calculator, including attributes
such as cost, environmental impact, and equity elements. NREL will design the
calculator in such a way that it will leverage the predicted mode choice decisions
whenever appropriate and discuss with the SEA staff on the assumptions for
other additional inputs, such as the capital/maintenance cost for the system on
curbside access fee. NREL will also leverage variables on sociodemographic
characteristics in the EPS to develop indicators on equity evaluation, to answer
questions such as whether subsidizing TNC will only benefit the high-income
group and whether implementing the access fee will impact different
demographic groups to the similar extent.
3.3. User Interface/Dashboard: develop a user interface and analysis dashboard for
this policy evaluation tool that allows the user to define policy inputs, run the
models, and review outputs in tabular and visual form. This policy evaluation tool
will be in a format of either a standalone application based in R/Python or a web
interface and it will enable long-term usability and maintainability. NREL will
discuss with the SEA on the preferable format for the SEA staff.
3.4. Tool Validation and Calibration: test the tools to ensure they predict ground
access behavior in ways that are intuitive and reasonable to SEA staff. As part of
this work, tools will be calibrated as necessary to enplanements and other
metrics.
Data Requirements
Current and anticipated future flight schedule
SEA dwell time distribution for departing and arriving passengers
Task 3 Deliverables Table
Task Deliverable Schedule
3.1 Design plan Policy evaluation tool design plan TBD
memo
3.2 Multi-Criteria Evaluation a) Model scripts (software) TBD
benefits calculator b) Demonstrate model to SEA staff TBD
FIA Appendix - SOW Mod (4-22-2021) 4
144
3.3 User interface/dashboard Standalone model application TBD
(software)
3.4 Tool validation and Brief memo describing goodness of fit TBD
calibration metrics, including uncertainty range
Task 4: Policy Scenarios
Project Description
Utilizing the policy evaluation tool developed in Task 3, NREL will evaluate a fixed number
of policy/infrastructure scenarios and train the SEA staff to use the tool. This part of the
work will focus initially on airport roadway access fee scenarios. However, there are many
other policy levers that this model will be used to evaluate, including improvements in
existing transit options, new transit or other ground access services, policy incentives
(e.g., expedited security for HOV users), operational changes (e.g., relocating TNCs
pickup), and other pricing beyond access fees (e.g., TNCs, parking, taxis, transit, etc.)
To this end, NREL will:
4.1. Scenario Development: work with SEA staff to define several policy scenarios.
This will include helping to develop and define data inputs and assumptions, as
well as output performance measures.
4.2. Scenario Implementation: configure and run the scenarios in the tools and
provide results to SEA staff. The scenario interface / dashboard will allow SEA
staff to run scenarios themselves as well.
4.3. Training: provide training to allow SEA staff to run additional policy scenarios
independently.
Task 4 Deliverables Table
Task Deliverable Schedule
4.1 Scenario development Policy scenario descriptions TBD
4.2 Scenario implementation a) Summary technical memo, including TBD
all study methodology and results
4.3 User interface/dashboard a) Port staff training session TBD
b) Documentation memo/reference TBD
guide
Task 5 Other work
Other work at the direction of the SEA, consistent with the scope and subject to the
availability of funding.
V. Schedule:
The anticipated period of performance for the work under this modification is 5 months.
FIA Appendix - SOW Mod (4-22-2021) 5
145
Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC,
manager and operator of the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Strategic Partnership Projects
Funds-In AgreementFIA-21-17442-1
Appendix C-1 Rights in Technical Data for Modification 1
(Alternative I - unlimited rights/nonproprietary - software)
1. The following definitions shall be used.
A. "Generated Information" means information produced in the performance of this Agreement or
any Contractor's subcontract under this Agreement.
B. "Proprietary Information" means information which is developed at private expense, is marked
as Proprietary Information, and embodies (1) trade secrets or (2) commercial or financial
information which is privileged or confidential under the Freedom of information Act (5 USC
552 (b)(4)).
C. "Unlimited Rights" means the right to use, disclose, reproduce, prepare derivative works,
distribute copies to the public, and perform publicly and display publicly, in any manner and for
any purpose, and to have or permit others to do so.
D. "Computer Software" means (i) computer programs that comprise a series of instructions, rules,
routines, or statements, regardless of the media in which recorded, that allow or cause a
computer to perform a specific operation or series of operations; and (ii) recorded information
comprising source code listings, design details, algorithms, processes, flow charts, formulas,
and related material that would enable the computer program to be produced, created, or
compiled.
2. For work performed at the DOE facility, the Sponsor agrees to furnish to the Contractor or leave at
the facility that information, if any, which is (1) essential to the performance of work by the
Contractor personnel or (2) necessary for the health and safety of such personnel in the
performance of the work. Any information furnished to the Contractor shall be deemed to have been
delivered with Unlimited Rights unless marked as Proprietary Information. The Sponsor agrees that
it has the sole responsibility for appropriately identifying and marking all documents provided
containing Proprietary Information
3. The Sponsor, Contractor, and the Government shall have Unlimited Rights in all Generated
Information, except for information which is disclosed in a Subject Invention disclosure being
considered for patent protection.
4. The Government and Contractor agree not to disclose properly marked Proprietary Information
without written approval of the Sponsor, except to Government employees who are subject to the
statutory provisions against disclosure of confidential information set forth in the Trade Secrets Act
(18 USC 1905).
5. The Sponsor is solely responsible for the removal of all of its Proprietary Information from the facility
by or before termination of this Agreement. The Sponsor may request the Contractor to return or
destroy all of the Sponsor's Proprietary Information subject to paragraph (2) above. The
Government and Contractor shall have Unlimited Rights in any information which is not removed
FIA Appendix C-1S Rights in Technical Data (8-7-2019) 1 146
from the facility by termination of this Agreement. The Government and Contractor shall have
Unlimited Rights in any Proprietary Information which is incorporated into the facility or equipment
under this Agreement to such extent that the facility or equipment is not restored to the condition
existing prior to such incorporation.
6. The Sponsor agrees that the Contractor will provide to the Department of Energy a nonproprietary
description of the work performed under this Agreement.
7. COPYRIGHT: The Parties may assert Copyright in any of their Generated Information. Subject to
the other provisions of this clause including Computer Software generated by the Contractor below,
and to the extent copyright is asserted, the Government reserves for itself and others acting in its
behalf, a paid-up, world-wide, irrevocable, non-exclusive license for Governmental purposes to
publish, distribute, translate, duplicate, exhibit, prepare derivative works, and perform any such
copyrighted works.
For Computer Software generated by the Contractor under this agreement, the Contractor grants to
the Sponsor a royalty-free, nontransferable, non-exclusive, irrevocable worldwide copyright license
for its own use.
When the Contractor asserts copyright in its Computer Software developed under this Agreement,
the Government has for itself and others acting on its behalf, a royalty-free, nontransferable,
nonexclusive, irrevocable worldwide copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works, and
perform publicly and display publicly, by or on behalf of the Government (narrow-license). After the
Contractor abandons or no longer commercializes the Copyrighted Computer Software, the
Government has for itself and others acting on its behalf, a royalty-free, nontransferable,
nonexclusive, irrevocable worldwide copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works,
distribute copies to the public, and perform publicly and display publicly, by or on behalf of the
Government (broad-license).
A separate copyright license may be necessary in Contractor Computer Software developed outside
of this Agreement and used to perform the work in this Agreement, such as creating derivative
works.
8. The terms and conditions of this Clause shall survive the Agreement, in the event that the
Agreement is terminated before completion of the Statement of Work.
FIA Appendix C-1S Rights in Technical Data (8-7-2019) 2 147
Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC
operator of the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Strategic Partnership Projects
Funds-In AgreementNonfederal Sponsor
Standard Agreement Face Page
1. Sponsor Name & Address 4. Funds-In Agreement Number
Port of Seattle FIA-21-17442-0
2711 Alaskan Way 5. Project Title
Seattle, WA 98121 Central Mechanical Plant and Waterfront Clean Energy
Strategic Plan
2. Estimated Performance Period (in months) 15
3. Financial 6. Agreement Terms and Conditions
This agreement consists of (1) this Standard Agreement,
Contractor Cost $ 150,000 (2) Terms and Conditions, and (3) the following:
DOE Administrative Charge $ 0 a. Appendix AStatement of Work
Total Not-to-Exceed Cost to Sponsor $ 150,000 b. Appendix BPatent Rights
Amount of first 90-day advance $ 0 c. Appendix CRights in Technical Data
See attached invoice for advance payment instructions.
7. SponsorRepresentatives 9. ContractorRepresentatives
Technical representative Technical representative
Stephanie Meyn Scott Cary
Port of Seattle National Renewable Energy Laboratory
2711 Alaskan Way 15013 Denver West Parkway, MS RSF 401
Seattle, WA 98121 Golden, CO 80401
206.787.3678 303.384.7169
8. Contract representative 10. Contract representative
Stephanie Meyn Katheryn Lennon
Port of Seattle National Renewable Energy Laboratory
2711 Alaskan Way 15013 Denver West Parkway, MS RSF 450-6
Seattle, WA 98121 Golden, CO 80401
206.787.3678 303.384.7378
11. Sponsor Acceptance 12. Contractor Acceptance
Stephen P. Metruck Anne Miller, Director Technology Transfer
Executive Director Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC
Port of Seattle Operator of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
2711 Alaskan Way 15013 Denver West Parkway
Seattle, WA 98121 Golden, CO 80401
Signature: Date: Signature: Date:
1 148
Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC
operator of the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Strategic Partnership Projects
Funds-In AgreementNonfederal Sponsor
General Terms and Conditions
(together with the face page and appendices, hereinafter referred to as "Agreement")
Article I. Parties to the Agreement. The U.S. Department of Energy facility contractor, Alliance for Sustainable
Energy, LLC, manager of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308
("Prime Contract") and hereinafter referred to as the "Contractor" or "NREL," has been requested by the
"Sponsor," as identified in Block 1 on page 1 of this Agreement, to use best efforts to perform the work set forth in
the Statement of Work, attached hereto as Appendix A. Sponsor is a municipal corporation under Title 53 of the
Revised Code of Washington ("RCW"), with authority to enter into this agreement pursuant to RCW 39.34. The
Contractor and Sponsor are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Parties" or individually as a "Party." It is
understood by the Parties that the Contractor is obligated to comply with the terms and conditions of its facility
Prime Contract with the United States Government (hereinafter called the "Government") represented by the United
States Department of Energy (hereinafter called the "Department" or "DOE") when providing goods, services,
products, materials, or information to the nonfederal Sponsor under this Agreement.
Article II. Term of the Agreement. The Contractor's estimated period of performance for completion of the
Statement of Work is included in Block 2 on page 1 of this Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall be
effective as of the later date of (1) the date on which it is signed by the last of the Parties thereto or (2) the date on
which funds are received and allocated to this Agreement. Unless terminated earlier, this Agreement shall terminate
on December 31, 2022.
Article III. Costs.
1. The Contractor estimated cost for the work to be performed under this Agreement is stated in Block 3 on
page 1 of this Agreement.
2. The Contractor has no obligation to continue or complete performance of the work at a cost in excess of the
original estimated cost or any subsequent amendment.
3. The Contractor agrees to provide at least thirty (30) days' notice to the Sponsor if the actual cost to
complete performance will exceed its estimated cost.
Article IV. Funding and Payment. The Parties acknowledge that in its capacity as the Port of Seattle Washington,
the Sponsor is prohibited by the Revised Code of Washington 42.24.080, Article VIII sections 5 and 7 of the
Washington State Constitution and/or other laws, constitutional prohibitions or regulations from advancing funds
for this reimbursable Funds-In-Agreement. In lieu of advance funding, Contractor intends to use the DOE Cost of
Strategic Partnership Projects Program under the Departmental Administration appropriation. The Sponsor shall
pay to the Contractor the actual costs incurred in performance of the work described in this Agreement and the
Contractor shall have no obligation to perform in the absence of payment of such actual costs. At the end of the
first month the Contractor will invoice the Sponsor in an amount sufficient to pay the first month's actual incurred
costs and thereafter invoice the Sponsor monthly for actual incurred costs until termination or completion of the
performance of work under this Agreement.
The Contractor will invoice the Sponsor each billing cycle. Sponsor's payment shall be due no later than thirty (30)
days after receipt of Contractor's invoice. Payment shall be made directly to the Contractor who will then notify the
DOE as appropriate. Upon termination or completion, any excess funds shall be refunded by the Contractor to the
Sponsor.
Article V. Source of Funds. The Sponsor hereby represents that, if the funding it brings to this Agreement has
been secured through other agreements, such other agreements do not have any terms and conditions (including
2
FIA General T&C State and Local Government (7-22-19) 149
intellectual property terms and conditions) that conflict with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
Article VI. Tangible Personal Property. Upon termination of this Agreement, tangible personal property or
equipment produced or acquired in conducting work under this Agreement shall be owned by the Sponsor. Tangible
personal property or equipment produced or acquired as part of this Agreement will be accounted for and
maintained during the term of the Agreement in the same manner as DOE property or equipment. Costs incurred for
disposition of property shall be the responsibility of the Sponsor and included in costs allocated in Article III or
paid separately by the Sponsor.
Article VII. Publication Matters. The publishing Party shall provide the other Party a 60-day period in which to
review and comment on proposed publications that disclose any of the following: technical developments and/or
research findings generated in the course of the Agreement or identify Proprietary Information (as defined in
Appendix C). The publishing Party shall not publish or otherwise disclose Proprietary Information identified by the
other Party, except as mandated by law.
The Sponsor will not use the name of Contractor, the Government, or their employees in any promotional activity,
such as advertisements, with reference to any product or service resulting from this Agreement, without prior
written approval of the Government and Contractor.
Article VIII. Legal Notice. The Parties agree that the following legal notice shall be affixed to each report
furnished to the Sponsor under this Agreement and to any report resulting from this Agreement which may be
distributed by the Sponsor:
DISCLAIMER
This report may contain research results which are experimental in nature. Neither the United States
Government, nor any agency thereof, nor Facility Contractor, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty,
express or implied, or assumes any legal responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any
information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately
owned rights. Reference to any specific commercial product, process, or service by its trade name, trademark,
manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply an endorsement or recommendation by the United
States Government or any agency thereof, or by the Facility Contractor. The United States Government
reserves for itself a royalty-free, worldwide, irrevocable, non-exclusive license for Governmental purposes to
publish, disclose, distribute, translate, duplicate, exhibit, prepare derivative works, and perform any such data
included herein. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of
the United States Government or any agency thereof, or by the Facility Contractor and shall not be used for
advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Article IX. Disclaimer. THE GOVERNMENT AND THE CONTRACTOR MAKE NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
WARRANTY AS TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE RESEARCH OR ANY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY,
GENERATED INFORMATION, OR PRODUCT MADE OR DEVELOPED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, OR
THE OWNERSHIP, MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF THE
RESEARCH OR RESULTING PRODUCT; THAT THE GOODS, SERVICES, MATERIALS, PRODUCTS,
PROCESSES, INFORMATION, OR DATA TO BE FURNISHED HEREUNDER WILL ACCOMPLISH
INTENDED RESULTS OR ARE SAFE FOR ANY PURPOSE INCLUDING THE INTENDED PURPOSE; OR
THAT ANY OF THE ABOVE WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS OF OTHERS.
NEITHER THE GOVERNMENT NOR THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE LIABLE FOR SPECIAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES ATTRIBUTED TO SUCH RESEARCH OR RESULTING
PRODUCT, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, GENERATED INFORMATION, OR PRODUCT MADE OR
DELIVERED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT.
Article X. General Indemnity. [Reserved]
Article XI. Product Liability Indemnity. To the extent permitted by Washington State law and except for any
loss, liability, or claim resulting from any willful misconduct or negligent acts or omissions of the Government, the
Contractor, or persons acting on their behalf ("Indemnified Parties"), the Sponsor agrees to hold harmless and
3
FIA General T&C State and Local Government (7-22-19) 150
indemnify the Indemnified Parties against any losses, liabilities, and claims, including all damages, costs, and
expenses, including attorney's fees, arising from personal injury or property damage occurring as a result of the
making, using, or selling of a product, process, or service by or on behalf of the Sponsor, its assignees, or licensees,
which was derived from the work performed under this Agreement.
For the purposes of this Article, neither the Government nor the Contractor shall be considered assignees or
licensees of the Sponsor, as a result of reserved Government and Contractor rights. This Article shall apply only if
the Sponsor was:
1. informed as soon and as completely as practical by the appropriate Indemnified Party of the allegation or
claim;
2. afforded, to the maximum extent by applicable laws, rules, or regulations, an opportunity to participate in
and control its defense; and
3. given all reasonably available information and reasonable assistance requested by the Sponsor.
No settlement for which the Sponsor would be responsible shall be made without the Sponsor's consent unless
required by final decree of a court of competent jurisdiction.
Article XII. Intellectual Property IndemnityLimited. [Reserved]
Article XIII. Notice and Assistance Regarding Patent and Copyright Infringement. Each Party shall report to
the other Party, promptly and in reasonable written detail, each claim or allegation of infringement of any patent,
copyright, trade secret or other intellectual property right based on the performance of this Agreement of which a
Party has knowledge. In the event of any claim or suit against a Party based on such alleged infringement, the other
Party shall furnish to the Party, when requested by the Party, all evidence and information in the possession of the
other Party pertaining to such suit or claim.
Article XIV. Patent Rights. Terms and conditions regarding patent rights are set forth in Appendix B attached
hereto and incorporated herein.
Article XV. Rights in Technical Data. Terms and conditions regarding rights in technical data are set forth in
Appendix C attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Article XVI. Background Intellectual Property. Each Party may use the other Party's Background Intellectual
Property identified in an appendix of this Agreement solely in performance of the Statement of Work. This
Agreement does not grant to either Party any option, grant, or license to commercialize, or otherwise use the other
Party's Background Intellectual Property. Licensing of Background Intellectual Property, if agreed to by the
Parties, shall be the subject of separate licensing agreements between the Parties.
Each Party shall use reasonable efforts to list all relevant Background Intellectual Property in the appendix titled
"Background Intellectual Property;" however, neither Party shall be liable to the other Party because of failure to
list its Background Intellectual Property.
Article XVII. Assignment and Notification. Neither this Agreement nor any interest therein or claim thereunder
shall be assigned or transferred by either Party, except as authorized in writing by the other Party to this Agreement,
provided, however, the Contractor may transfer it to the Department, or its designee, with notice of such transfer to
the Sponsor, and the Contractor shall have no further responsibilities except for the confidentiality, use, and/or nondisclosure
obligations of this Agreement. The obligations of the Contractor set forth in this Agreement shall apply
to any successor in interest continuing the operation of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
If the Sponsor intends to assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement to a third party or the Sponsor is merging
or being acquired by a third party, the Sponsor shall notify the Contractor with details of the pending action for a
determination. The Contractor shall reply in writing whether such transfer is acceptable or invoke the termination
4
FIA General T&C State and Local Government (7-22-19) 151
clause.
Article XVIII. Similar or Identical Services. The Government and/or Contractor shall have the right to perform
similar or identical services in the Statement of Work for other sponsors as long as the Sponsor's Proprietary
Information is not utilized.
Article XIX. Export Control. Each Party is responsible for its own compliance with laws and regulations
governing export control.
Article XX. Disputes. The Parties shall attempt to jointly resolve all disputes arising from this Agreement. In the
event a dispute arises under this Agreement, the Sponsor is encouraged to contact Contractor's Technology
Partnerships Ombudsman in order to resolve such dispute before pursuing third-party mediation or other remedies.
If the Parties are unable to jointly resolve a dispute within 60 days, the Parties agree to submit the dispute to a thirdparty
mediation process that is mutually agreed upon by the Parties.
Article XXI. Entire Agreement and Modifications.
1. This Agreement with its appendices contains the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the
subject matter hereof, and all prior representations or agreements relating hereto have been merged into this
document and are thus superseded in totality by this Agreement.
2. Any agreement to materially change any terms or conditions of this Agreement or the appendices shall be
valid only if the change is made in writing, executed by the Parties hereto, and approved by DOE.
Article XXII. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by either Party, following thirty (30) days written
notice to the other Party. If Article IV provides for advance funding, this Agreement may also be terminated by the
Contractor in the event of failure by the Sponsor to provide the necessary advance funding. In the event of
termination, either by the Sponsor or the Contractor (e.g. for lack of advance funding), the Sponsor shall be
responsible for the Contractor's costs (including closeout costs), but in no event shall the Sponsor's cost
responsibility exceed the total cost to the Sponsor as described in Article III, above.
It is agreed that any obligations of the Parties regarding Proprietary Information or other intellectual property will
remain in effect, despite early termination of the Agreement.
Article XXIII. Public Records Act. Sponsor is a public agency subject to the Washington State Public Records
Act, Chap. 42.56 RCW. Sponsor and Contractor shall each be responsible for fulfilling public records requests
received by it under RCW 42.56 or the Freedom of Information Act (5 USC 552), respectively, provided that the
Parties shall cooperate and assist one another if needed. For clarity, such cooperation and assistance does not
obligate either Party to provide records to the other Party. In the course of this Agreement, the Parties may
exchange or share records that are confidential, sensitive, or otherwise exempt from public disclosure. The Parties
shall treat confidential and security-sensitive records with the utmost care, and shall provide notice to one another
of records requests to which confidential or security-sensitive records may be responsive. Each Party shall
independently assert legally-applicable exemptions in response to records requests, provided that if the Parties
disagree about whether exemptions are applicable to particular records, each Party shall have the option to provide
the other Party notice and an opportunity to seek an injunction. Because the Parties are engaged in a joint
undertaking, the common interest privilege shall apply to records that are exempt as attorney/client privileged or
prepared in anticipation of litigation.
Article XXIV. Records Maintenance. The Parties to this Agreement shall each maintain books, records, documents
and other evidence which sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect costs expended by either party in the
performance of the services. These records shall be subject to inspection, review or audit by personnel of both Parties,
other personnel duly authorized by either party, the Office of the State Auditor, and federal officials so authorized by
law. All books, records, documents, and other material relevant to this Agreement will be retained for six years after
expiration and the Office of the State Auditor, federal auditors, and any persons duly authorized by the Parties shall
have full access and the right to examine any of these materials during this period.
5
FIA General T&C State and Local Government (7-22-19) 152
Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC
operator of the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Strategic Partnership Projects
Funds-In AgreementFIA-21-17442-0
Appendix A Statement of Work
Notice: By signing this Agreement, the Sponsor acknowledges in advance that its entity name and the title and
non-proprietary description of the project are available for public release by the Contractor without further notice.
I. Project Title:
Central Utility Plant Redesign Optimization & Waterfront Clean Energy Electrification Study
II. Non-Proprietary Description of Project:
Provide technical assistance to assist in the Port of Seattle's net zero/carbon neutral/carbon negative
2050 goals.
III. Background:
Parties to this agreement are:
Contractor: Alliance for Sustainable Energy, operator of the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory under Prime Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 for the U.S. Department
of Energy (DOE). Contractor has a facility at 15013 Denver West Parkway, Golden,
CO 80401.
Sponsor: Port of Seattle (Port). Sponsor has a facility at 2711 Alaskan Way, Seattle, WA
98121
IV. Statement of Work - Task Descriptions, Deliverables, and Estimated Completion Dates:
a. Task Descriptions
Task 1-Central Utility Plant (CUP)
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA) is a top-ten U.S. airport, serving 51.8 million
passengers and 453,549 metric tons of air cargo in 2019. The facility, part of the Port of Seattle is in
one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the nation. The airport was one of the first airports
in the nation to develop a comprehensive greenhouse gas inventory (2006) and begin setting goals to
become carbon neutral by 2050.
The Port of Seattle has a net zero emission target for 2050 and has already been able to reach its
2030 emission reduction goal of 50% through the use of zero carbon electricity, low carbon fuels,
and primarily due to renewable natural gas. With work progressing on these goals, legacy systems
operating on fossil fuels are significant barriers to the Port meeting its emissions reduction targets.
SEA Airport's aggressive emissions reduction goals require actions to be addressed years in advance
to most cost effectively align with scheduled maintenance and facility upgrades.
The Port of Seattle has committed to addressing all new energy demand through conservation and
renewable energy sources and the airport's Central Mechanical Plant natural gas usage is a
1 of 7
FIA SOW (7-22-19)
153
significant load that is being considered for optimization along with other emission sources at the
Port.
Project Description
The primary goals of this project are to identify opportunities for reducing emissions for the airport
while expanding the thermal generation capacities for the primary central mechanical plant
supporting the majority of terminal loads.
An existing central plant has four natural gas boilers that produces steam from natural gas for
heating and eight electric chillers plus three water side economizing plate frame heat exchangers
that produce chilled water for cooling. The plant has been in its current location approximately 50
years, with maintained, rebuilt, upgraded and replaced equipment over its lifetime. Three of the
boilers are approximately 50 years old, 1 boiler 13 years old, 1 chiller 30 years old, 3 chillers 20
years and 4 chillers 15 years. As part of the Sustainable Airport Master Plan (SAMP), the airport is
evaluating the ability to expand by approximately 24 gates to the north and expects to build a
utilidor to the new facility. The existing system distributes steam to multiple terminal concourses
via steam piping utilidors to hot water heat exchangers. Additional load on the facility is generated
via the pre-conditioned air (PCA) heating system which is part of the highly efficient PCA
cooling/heating system plant. Projected heating demand, with the addition of the 24 gates appears to
exceed available capacity, based on peak demand. Concepts under consideration include expanding
the existing central plant for heat generation, installing a new facility to service additional square
footage or some other combination of solutions.
To this end, NREL will:
1. Provide feedback on any existing studies and guidance for future utility planning, including
the Utility Master Plan (Mechanical Books from SD-4, SD-3, and SD-11)
2. Review existing plant operations, performance, loads and level of utilization.
3. After review of available data, review assumptions with SEA that will influence potential
alternatives. Initial assumptions include low cost of electrical energy, aspirational goals for
carbon reduction, limited space, and meeting future energy needs through conservation.
Energy resiliency, the ability to recover from disruptive but infrequent events, will be
evaluated as a potential assumption.
4. Develop conceptual-level concepts for the future state of the CMP. Technologies that may
be considered include but are not limited to conversion of heating system from steam to hot
water, geothermal ground source heat pumps, heat pump based central plant using heat
recovery chillers, thermal storage, battery storage, combined heat and power, wastewater
heat recovery, and other potential solutions regarding long term energy needs as requested.
5. Review potential concepts for the future state of the CMP with SEA key staff for refinement.
This will include obtaining additional feedback on facility space limitations.
6. Assess proposed alternatives in relation to any existing overall energy strategy and potential
reductions in emissions.
7. For the preferred solution, utilize the NREL REopt tool to provide a techno-economic
analysis for the proposed mix of power and/or heat generation, existing and potential energy
sources, thermal and electric storage, and demand optimization for primary loads of the
central mechanical plant. Effort will include a preliminary review of assumptions with SEA,
review of draft results of analysis and final results of efforts.
Data Requirements
Recent and 2021 Utility Master Plan documents
Copies of relevant previous studies, including long range energy needs at the facility
2 of 7
FIA SOW (7-22-19)
154
CMP process schematic with system specifications, operation requirements, constraints, and
costs at a fidelity sufficient to perform the technoeconomic assessment
CMP loads (hourly for year) and energy and water use and associated costs
Projected future CMP loads under 3 different growth scenarios provided by SEA (no new
terminals, SAMP near-term and long-term projects)
Facility space limitations and analysis for future space use conducted as part of the SAMP
Task 1 Deliverables Table
Task Deliverable Schedule
1. Data Review a) Kick-off meeting Upon agreement effective
date
b) Data Collection 2 months
c) Review Available Data Related 1 month after receipt of all
to CMP necessary data
d) Review Assumptions related to 1 month after data review
CMP with SEA
2. Develop a) Develop Alternatives 1 month following receipt of
Alternatives comments regarding
assumptions
b) Review Alternatives with SEA, 2 months following receipt
refine alternatives of comments
3. Run Re-Opt Techno-economic analysis Draft 4 months after receipt of all
Tool results necessary data
4. Final Report a) A draft report as described above Within 1 month of receipt of
Port comments on draft
results
b) A final report as described above Within 1 month of receipt of
Port comments on draft
report
5. General General Advisory Services and As needed.
Technical Assistance related to the
airport's CMP evaluation
Task 2-Waterfront Clean Energy Electrification Study
In the Strategic Objectives section of the Century Agenda, the Port of Seattle has committed to
addressing all new energy demand through conservation and renewable energy. In addition, the
Port of Seattle has committed to reducing air pollutants and GHG in a stepwise function to
eventually meet the goal of carbon neutral or carbon negative by 2050 for all ground and maritime
transportation needs.
Under this mandate, the Port of Seattle has undertaken the Seattle Waterfront Clean Energy
Strategic Plan (SWCESP) initiative. The Port of Seattle has retained a consultant to develop various
components of this strategic plan (e.g., project planning, vision/goals, current/forecasted energy
needs, planning scenarios, and implementation strategy). To complement this analysis, the Port of
Seattle would like to utilize NREL's unique modeling, analysis, and facilities in certain areas to
provide a greater understanding and knowledge of potential scenarios to achieve these ambitious
3 of 7
FIA SOW (7-22-19)
155
goals. NREL recommends a phased approach for their assistance based on current financial
limitations and study needs of the Port.
Phase I would focus on providing an optimal set of energy asset combinations for the Port of Seattle
to make preliminary pathway decisions for Pier 46 and 91. Future phases of collaboration could
utilize the various models and tools at NREL to provide a holistic operational optimization if needed
in the future by the Port of Seattle.
Project Description
The goal of this project is to identify energy asset combinations (e.g., on-site renewable generation,
energy storage, and other considerations such as transportation vehicle loads or on-site generation of
renewable fuels) to address energy costs, network constraints (as determined by others), and
sustainability initiatives. In coordination with the Port of Seattle, NREL can technically validate
and financially evaluate options for the SWCESP.
To this end, NREL will provide:
1. Coordination and Management. NREL will engage as a stakeholder and advisor to the Port
in 1) evaluating current energy demand, load and capacity profiles, 2) forecasting demands
and planning scenarios, and 3) analysis of alternatives. It is expected that NREL will
collaborate with the Port and their designated representatives for approximately 100 hours in
support of the evaluation of current and forecasted energy demands and clean energy planning
scenarios, participating in working groups, advising on data collection efforts to increase
efficiency for all parties, reviewing documents and providing industry insights into emerging
technologies.
2. Techno-economic assessment. Upon completion of the current inventories and forecasted
scenarios, NREL will assess the technical and economic viability of several renewable energy
and energy storage technologies with a focus on Terminal 91 using NREL's Renewable
Energy Optimization (REopt) tool. NREL will consider current and proposed future energy
consumption, energy cost, renewable energy resource, technology cost, space available, and
distribution system constraints as defined in the Port's planning efforts This analysis will be
informed by any existing studies such as conceptual site planning, microgrid evaluations, and
future load profile development. NREL will work with Port of Seattle, its consultant, and
other key stakeholders in the development of several load profiles that bracket Pier
redevelopment and offer operational flexibility. The analysis will be performed for up to three
different existing facility meters and/or aggregation of similar meters, up to 3 load scenarios,
and up to 3 RE targets. The recommended system sizes and economics (initial cost, O&M
cost, lifecycle cost, and net present value) for each meter will be provided. While Pier 46 will
not be evaluated in the REopt model, the results from Pier 91 analysis will be summarized and
can be used to inform Pier 46 decisions.
Data Requirements:
Inclusion in Port data collection and planning processes; coordination and access to relevant data
and deliverables including:
Detailed inventory of Port energy uses and demand profiles by location.
Criteria for and prioritized list of locations, study areas and/or uses for continued analysis.
Detailed raw data collected necessary for techno-economic analysis.
4 of 7
FIA SOW (7-22-19)
156
Access to any other relevant deliverables from related studies.
Future energy forecast, evaluation of energy supply constraints, and identification and analysis
of clean energy planning scenarios and impacts.
A full list of data requirements for the techno-economic assessment (e.g., current energy bills for
past year, tariffs, natural gas usage, cost of capital, etc.) will be provided for the Port of Seattle to
start the data gathering process.
Task 2 Deliverables Table
Task Deliverable Schedule
Project Kick-off meeting, data requirements Upon agreement
Management & effective date
Coordination
Technical Advisory Collaboration and technical assistance with 6 months
Services Waterfront Clean Energy Strategic Plan
planning process
REopt Analysis Techno-economic analysis Draft results 4 months after receipt
of all necessary data
Techno-economic analysis Final results 2 months following
receipt of comments
on Draft Results
Final Report NREL will provide a written report (~5 pages) or 1 month following
slide deck (~20 slides) summarizing analysis tecno-economic
assumptions and results. The report will analysis
provide a prioritized list of options to meet
varying levels of renewable energy generation.
5 of 7
FIA SOW (7-22-19)
157
Figure 1 - Pier 46 Vicinity
6 of 7
FIA SOW (7-22-19)
158
Figure 2 - Pier 91 Vicinity - Google Earth
V. Schedule:
It is anticipated work will be complete 15 months from Agreement effective date.
7 of 7
FIA SOW (7-22-19)
159
Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC
operator of the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Strategic Partnership Projects
Funds-In AgreementFIA-21-17442-0
Appendix B-5 Patent Rights
(Alternative III - no R&D performed)
[RESERVED] No research, development, or demonstration is to be conducted in the performance of the
Statement of Work.
2
FIA General T&C State and Local Government (7-22-19) 160
Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC
operator of the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Strategic Partnership Projects
Funds-In AgreementFIA-21-17442-0
Appendix C-3 Rights in Technical Data
(Alternative IV - facility services agreement or federal funds/nonproprietary)
1. The following definitions shall be used.
A. "Generated Information" means information produced in the performance of this Agreement or any
subcontract under this Agreement.
B. "Proprietary Information" means information which is developed at private expense, is marked as
Proprietary Information, and embodies (1) trade secrets or (2) commercial or financial information which is
privileged or confidential under the Freedom of information Act (5 USC 552 (b)(4)).
C. "Unlimited Rights" means the right to use, disclose, reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies
to the public, and perform publicly and display publicly, in any manner and for any purpose, and to have or
permit others to do so.
2. Generated Information shall not be marked as Proprietary Information. If the Sponsor provides Proprietary
Information to the Contractor to perform the work, such Proprietary Information will be destroyed or returned
to the Sponsor as directed by the Sponsor in writing. The Government and Contractor shall have Unlimited
Rights in any information which is not removed from the facility by termination of this Agreement. Subject to
the provisions of this Clause, Sponsor shall have the right to use, release to others, reproduce, distribute, or
publish any data first produced under this Agreement. The DOE and the Contractor shall have the right to
publish and use any data generated by Contractor and any data provided by the Sponsor to the Contractor
(unless such provided data is marked as Proprietary Information by the Sponsor), and to permit others to do so,
The Government and the Contractor agree not to disclose properly marked Proprietary Information to anyone
other than the Sponsor without written approval of the Sponsor, except to Government employees who are
subject to the statutory provisions against disclosure of confidential information set forth in the Trade Secrets
Act (18 USC 1905). The Sponsor agrees that the Facility Contractor may provide to the DOE a non-proprietary
description of the work to be performed under this Agreement.
3
FIA General T&C State and Local Government (7-22-19) 161
Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC
operator of the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Strategic Partnership Projects
Funds-In AgreementFIA-21-17442-0
Appendix D Background Intellectual Property
Patents, Patent Applications, and Record of Inventions
Project Title: Central mechanical Plant and Waterfront Clean Energy Strategic Plan
The Contractor and the Sponsor have identified and agreed that the following Background Intellectual Property may
be used in the performance of work under this Agreement and may be needed to practice the results of this
Agreement.
Contractor:
NREL SWR-12-19: "REopt (Renewable Energy Optimization)"
Sponsor:
None Expected
"Intellectual Property" means patents, trademarks, copyrights, mask works, and other forms of comparable property
rights protected by Federal Law and foreign counterparts, except trade secrets.
"Background Intellectual Property" means the Intellectual Property identified by the Parties that was in existence
prior to or is first produced outside of this Agreement, except that in the case of inventions in those identified items,
the inventions must have been conceived outside of this Agreement and not first actually reduced to practice under
this Agreement to qualify as Background Intellectual Property.
Each Party may use the other Party's identified Background Intellectual Property solely in performance of research
under the Statement of Work detailed in Appendix A of this Agreement. This Agreement does not grant to either
Party any option, grant, or license to commercialize, or otherwise use the other Party's Background Intellectual
Property outside of this Agreement. Licensing of Background Intellectual Property, if agreed to by the Parties, shall
be the subject of separate licensing agreements between the Parties.
The Parties understand that Background Intellectual Property may control or dominate a Subject Invention
generated under this Agreement. For any such Subject Invention controlled by Contractor Background Intellectual
Property, Contractor agrees to negotiate in good faith with the Sponsor to establish terms of the nonexclusive,
commercial license. It is understood by the Sponsor that the Contractor shall have no obligation to grant such a
license to the Sponsor and may grant exclusive or nonexclusive commercial licenses to others or sell or assign all
or part of the rights in the Background Intellectual Property to any third party(ies), subject to any pre-existing rights
held by the Government and obligations to others.
The Parties agree to maintain all unpublished Background Intellectual Property as confidential. Upon termination of
this Agreement, each Party agrees to promptly discontinue its use of the other Party's Background Intellectual
Property and will, at the other Party's request, return or destroy all remaining Background Intellectual Property. In
the event the Contractor terminates this Agreement (1) for breach with respect to any material provision thereof; or
(2) pursuant to the Termination Article of this Agreement, the Sponsor's rights to all NREL Background Intellectual
Property will automatically terminate.
Each Party has used reasonable efforts to list all relevant Background Intellectual Property, but Intellectual Property
may exist that is not identified. Neither Party shall be liable to the other Party because of failure to list Background
Intellectual Property.
4
FIA General T&C State and Local Government (7-22-19) 162
Iten no. 8f_supp
Meeting Date: November 14, 2021
Agreement with National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL)
September 14, 2021
Adrian Down
Peter Lindsay
163
NREL Athena
Innovative transportation team that uses data science to
evaluate and change travel patterns
Partner with airports including DFW to analyze:
Access fees
Shuttle bus optimization
Traffic volumes
New infrastructure
164
Athena
Partners
RETURN TO AGENDA
165
COMMISSION
AGENDA MEMORANDUM Item No. 8g
ACTION ITEM Date of Meeting September 14, 2021
DATE: August 27, 2021
TO: Stephen P. Metruck, Executive Director
FROM: Tina Soike, Director Engineering Services
Janice Zahn, Assistant Engineering Director, Construction Services
SUBJECT: Elevator Shafts & Vestibules (MC-0319902/WP#U00434/CIP#C800789) Change
Order Over 60 Days
ACTION REQUESTED
Request Commission authorization for the Executive Director to execute a change order to
Contract MC-0319902 Elevator Shafts & Vestibules to add 233 Calendar days to the Contract
duration to reconcile the contractual completion date to the actual completion date.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This change order requires the addition of 233 calendar days to the Contract duration.
Commission action is required under the General Delegation of Authority because the Change
Order includes a time extension of more than sixty days. No additional project funding is required
with this request.
Description of Change Order
This change order revises the contract completion date and establishes the amount of liquidated
damages to be collected from the Contractor.
Background
The intent of the Elevator Shafts & Vestibules project was to fully weatherize the parking garage
elevator towers above the 8th floor deck in the B and C sections of the garage prior to the
installation of new elevators in the B and C shaft towers under a subsequent project. Prior to this
project, during periods of heavy or prolonged rain, water penetrating the towers could be seen
4 to 5 floors below. The project also installed fall protection rails on the roof of the B and C towers,
eliminated slip/trip hazards, and improved the customer experience in the elevator lobbies.
On June 9, 2020, the Port executed a construction contract with Swinerton Builders in the
amount of $1,838,838.92. The Contract has experienced both cost growth and schedule delays
due to design changes and varying site conditions. The contractor also ha d issues scheduling
critical work by subcontractors to meet the required completion date. With the schedule
challenges, the Port and the Contractor mutually agreed to suspend the project for 95 days to
Template revised September 22, 2016.
166
COMMISSION AGENDA 8g Page 2 of 3
Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
avoid poor installation outcomes when installing traffic coating in the winter months and allows
the required time to procure materials that had longer than anticipated lead times.
These issues have extended the current Contract completion 233 days beyond the contract
specified date of January 5, 2021 to the new contract completion date of August 26, 2021. The
Port will issue a change order to include the 95 days of mutually agreed to suspension time. The
change order will also include 66 Non-Excusable and Non-Compensable Days and 72 Excusable
and Non-Compensable Days. The Change Order also includes Liquidated Damages in the amount
of $85,800.00 for the 66 days of Non-Excusable and Non-Compensable Days. The contractor has
not agreed to accept the Liquidated Damages being assessed and they have not yet submitted
information which the Port finds compelling justification to support any relief from the
assessment of liquidated damages. The current value of the Contract is $1,967,040.05.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There is no additional funding being requested with this action.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED
Alternative 1 Do not authorize the issuance of the Change Order, continue further negotiations.
Pros:
(1) Further negotiations may result in a bi-lateral agreement with the Contractor.
Cons:
(1) Does not start the timelines in the contract to begin the contractually established tiered
dispute resolution process. Delays project closeout and increase Port costs to continue
negotiations.
(2) Will require the project to return to Commission for approval of a future change order
to resolve the contract days in excess of 60 days.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 2 Authorize the issuance of the Change Order to extend the Contract duration by
233 days.
Pros:
(1) The Port staff has analyzed the schedule delays and established the change order
amount and time extension that is fair and reasonable.
(2) Puts the Contractor on a contractual timeline for providing any additional information
which might support relief from Liquidated Damages from being accessed.
Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.
167
COMMISSION AGENDA 8g Page 3 of 3
Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
Cons:
(1) Contractor may dispute this change order and it will proceed through the contractual
Dispute Resolution process which may result in additional staff time on the project and
potential legal expenses.
This is the recommended alternative.
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST
None
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS
May 8, 2018 The Commission authorized $595,000 to design and prepare construction
documents for the initial phase of the Parking Garage Elevators Modernization project at
the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.
January 14, 2019 The Commission authorized $4,251,500 to prepare design and
construction bid documents for Phase 2 of the Parking Garage Elevator Modernization
project at Settle-Tacoma International Airport and use Port of Seattle crews and small
works contracts for preliminary work if required.
October 14, 2019 The Commission authorized $2,155,000 to advertise and execute a
construction contract for the first phase of the Parking Garage Elevator Modernization
project at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.
RETURN TO AGENDA
Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.
168
COMMISSION
AGENDA MEMORANDUM Item No. 8h
ACTION ITEM Date of Meeting September 14, 2021
DATE : September 7, 2021
TO: Stephen P. Metruck, Executive Director
FROM: Andy Gregory, Sr. Program Manager, Community Engagement
Ilays Aden, Program Coordinator, Community Engagement
SUBJECT: South King County Fund Community Capacity Building Contract
Amount of this request: $400,000
Total estimated project cost: $400,000
ACTION REQUESTED
Request Commission authorization for the Executive Director to advertise and execute a South
King County Community Capacity Building Contract to support near-airport communities and
develop equity based partnerships with the Port through the South King County Fund (SKCF);
and authorize the expenditure of the contract in an amount not-to-exceed $400,000 from the
South King County Fund.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2018, the Commission authorized the South King County Fund (SKCF), a $10 Million program
to develop equity-based partnerships with near-airport communities. The original intent of the
SKCF was to address airport noise, environmental health, and sustainability. In 2020 in the wake
of COVID-19 and the ensuing economic crisis, economic development was added as an
approved use.
The goal of the SKCF is to develop equity-based partnerships with near-airport communities.
Due to historical practices such as redlining, and the increasing gentrification of South Seattle,
these communities have high populations of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) as
well as low-income populations who continue to be pushed farther and farther south.
Additionally, near-airport communities of color experience environmental and social injustice,
having disproportionately less access to parks and open spaces, increased exposure to
pollution, and fewer economic opportunities. COVID-19 has had both severe health and
economic impacts on these communities, many of whom work at the airport or in Port-related
industries.
Template revised January 10, 2019.
169
COMMISSION AGENDA Action Item No. 8h Page 2 of 7
Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
The Port is working hard to lead an equitable recovery and where possible, begin to right these
historical injustices. The SKCF is a powerful tool to directly address the needs of near-airport
BIPOC communities through direct community investment in environmental improvements and
paths to equitable economic opportunities. Critical in the success of these investments is
developing meaningful and equitable partnerships with non-profits and community groups that
serve the diverse South King County communities.
The SKCF invests in communities through three programs- the Environmental Grants Program,
Economic Recovery Grants, and WMBE Small Business Development Programs such as Port
Gen. These three tracts provide opportunities for a full range of investment, from community
improvement projects to non-profit workforce development, and small business assistance. Key
to the success of the programs is developing authentic community partnerships and providing
the technical assistance needed for organizations to navigate Port procurement processes. Port
staff from External Relations, OEDI, Economic Development, and CPO have worked with the
support of outside consultants to develop the framework for equitable engagement,
application process, and contracting. As consultant contracts are set to expire in December of
2021, staff need a sustaining mechanism of support to continue and expand this critical work.
The Community Capacity Building contract will build upon the formative community
engagement work that has been done in the first two years of the SKCF and expand essential
services designed to improve access and equity within the fund. The contract will fund the
continuation of the Community Liaison program, supporting community members to advise the
fund and actively participate in outreach opportunities. In the first year of the fund, community
liaisons generated nearly 1/3 of the total applications received for the Environmental Grants
Program, 100% of which went to BIPOC-led groups. It is important to note that the Port cannot
directly fund stipends to community liaisons or community grant reviewers and hiring a thirdparty
consultant is critical to the continuation of both of these programs.
Additionally, the Community Capacity Building contract will fund essential equity and access
services including translation, interpretation, wrap-around services for participation in
meetings, as well as stipends for community grant reviewers.
Finally, the contract will provide support for capacity building for grassroots non-profits and
community groups to help better position them to receive SKCF awards and other contracting
opportunities with the Port. Through the development of a mentorship model and a series of
annual events, the consultant will provide grant writing, technical assistance, and other
administrative supports to build the capacity of community-led grassroots nonprofits to
compete for Port and other funding opportunities.
This contract will run from the beginning of 2022 through the end of 2024 and service the
remaining three years of the SKCF.
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
170
COMMISSION AGENDA Action Item No. 8h Page 3 of 7
Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
JUSTIFICATION
The work proposed in this contract supports essential functions of the South King County Fund
and furthers several Port goals, strategies, and policies including those found in the Century
Agenda and several Commission policy directives forming the South King County Fund.
Century Agenda:
Goal 5: Become a Model for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion, (Objective 14: Ensure that all
internal and external programs, structures and practices provide equitable opportunities for all)
Ensuring equitable access to the SKCF for diverse, multicultural, multilingual communities is at
the heart of this Community Capacity Building contract. While Port staff has some capacity to
provide basic language access and community engagement support for the SKCF, near-airport
communities are so widespread and diverse, that it is critical we have outside support to do this
work well.
Goal 3: Responsibly Invest in the Economic Growth of the Region and all its Communities,
(Objective 6: Increase business opportunities for local communities in all port-related
industries).
A key component of the Community Capacity Building contract will be supporting grassroots
nonprofits from South King County to better position themselves for funding through the SKCF
Economic Recovery Program which provides contracts for workforce and small business
development in port-related industries.
Motion 2019-10
South King County Fund Principles
2. Prioritize community input to inform Port decision making.
The Community Capacity Building contract will provide funding for Community Grant Reviewers
who participate in the grant evaluation process by reading grant materials, participating in
applicant interviews, and providing the Port evaluation team with a list of project strengths and
weaknesses. Additionally, this work will fund the continuation and expansion of the Community
Liaison Program, which helps to guide the development of grant materials, and provides critical
community perspectives.
3. Support Port equity policies and practices (Gives underrepresented communities access to
opportunities, and uses equity policies to evaluate potential initiatives and establish desired
outcomes)
The Community Capacity Building contract will be a direct mechanism to ensure equity in the
outreach, engagement, materials development, recruitment and selection of projects both by
providing language access through interpretation and translation services as well as prioritizing
equitable community engagement with diverse South King County communities.
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
171
COMMISSION AGENDA Action Item No. 8h Page 4 of 7
Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
Statement in Support of the Motion- develop a long-term equitable engagement mechanism (4.
Establish a mechanism for equitable engagement with underrepresented near-airport
communities, 5. Build community capacity for engagement with the Port through leadership
development, 6. Be responsive and supportive of community interests, 7. Maintain
communications with engaged stakeholders through regular communications.)
The Community Capacity Building contract will be the primary implementation model for
conducting all the work described above. This work was started by A/V Consulting through a
contract that is set to expire in December 2021. Currently, we have an established Community
Liaison Model and a group of deeply engaged liaisons that are poised to carry this work into the
next phase. Critical in the success of this program is the external support of a consultant who
can provide direct liaison support and a contracting mechanism for the project stipends.
Diversity in Contracting
Staff will be contacting the Diversity in Contracting department to develop robust WMBE goals.
It is vitally important the successful firm can demonstrate deep cultural competency,
connections to BIPOC-led South King County grassroots nonprofits, and be able to provide a
variety of language and other access support services. Additionally, they will be responsible for
contracting with community members who serve as liaisons to multi-lingual, multi-cultural
community groups that have high populations of immigrants and refugees.
DETAILS
Scope of Work
The Port seeks an organization that can provide capacity-building support to diverse nearairport
communities to advance the SKCF goal of building equity-based partnerships with the
Port. The organization must have deep community ties in South King County, have
demonstrated experience in providing culturally competent support to multi-lingual, multicultural
communities, and have the capacity to support community members through small
contracts to provide services to the Port.
Task 1 Community Liaison and Grant Reviewer Support and Contracting
Assist Port staff in implementing community liaison program to engage multicultural
and multilingual communities in soliciting ideas, developing project plans, and applying
for grants.
Develop individual small sub-contracts for community liaisons and community grant
reviewers who provide services to the Port for the South King County Fund.
Assist the Port in the recruitment of community participants from near-airport multi-
cultural, multi-lingual communities.
Provide mentorship, coaching, skills building, and trainings that support liaison capacity
to engage in project related activities. Community-desired skills training topics may
include, but are not limited to meeting facilitation, racial equity and anti-oppression,
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
172
COMMISSION AGENDA Action Item No. 8h Page 5 of 7
Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
project management, budgeting, communications, evaluation, reporting, and navigating
Port-specific governance processes.
Task 2 Grassroots Community Based Organization (CBO) Capacity Building in South King
County
Facilitate recruitment, support, and mentorship for South King County-based grassroots
CBOs to be better positioned to partner with the Port.
Help to connect community projects generated through the liaison process with fiscal
sponsors or CBO partners.
Create opportunities for mentorship with emerging grassroots CBOs and other regional
non-profits.
Task 3 Events Support and Logistics
Support the planning and execution of networking events and peer to peer learning
events to connect prior grant recipients with emerging or grassroots CBOs.
Organize annual South King County Environmental Forum to support exchange of
project ideas and shared learning.
Organize and facilitate an annual South King County Economic Recovery informational
session that helps education CBOs:
o Port Related Industries
o Contracting with the Port
Task 4 Wrap-Around Services for Community and CBO Engagement and Grant Administration
Identify and coordinate interpreters to provide language support for grant applicants
and liaisons.
Arrange logistics that support liaison, grant review, and CBO partnerships with the Port,
including but not limited to coordination and management of participation and meeting
logistics such as catering, childcare, notetaking, facilitation, and other tasks associated
with equitable engagement best practices.
Task 5 Materials Development and Translation
Support SKCF outreach and engagement through the development of communications
materials.
Assist Port staff and community liaisons in the review and co-creation of culturally
relevant outreach materials.
Work with Port communications staff to develop multi-media materials that promote
prior projects and future opportunities.
Develop a virtual interactive story map that visually and geospatially depicts projects
funded by SKCF
Coordinate the translation and community review of all grant and project-related
materials.
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
173
COMMISSION AGENDA Action Item No. 8h Page 6 of 7
Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
Schedule
Advertise procurement Q4, 2021
Hire Firm Q1, 2022
Contract Completion Q4 2024
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED
Alternative 1 Do not fund Community Capacity Building for SKCF
Cost Implications: $0
Pros:
(1) None
Cons:
(1) Break commitments made to community through the first two years of the SKCF
(2) Reduce equity and access to the fund without a meaningful model for implementing
the Community Liaison and Community Grant Reviewer programs.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 2 Approve and execute contract with SKC based consultant or non-profit to
conduct the work described above, using funds from the South King County Fund.
Cost Implications: $400,000
Pros:
(1) Continue and expand vital community capacity building and equity work for the SKCF
(2) Provide direct resources and support to South King County communities through
stipends and increased access to funding
Cons:
(1) None
This is the recommended alternative.
Cost Estimate/Authorization Summary Capital Expense Total
COST ESTIMATE
Original estimate $0 $400,000 $400,000
AUTHORIZATION
Previous authorizations 0 0 0
Current request for authorization 0 $400,000 $400,000
Total authorizations, including this request 0 $400,000 $400,000
Remaining amount to be authorized $0 $0 $0
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
174
COMMISSION AGENDA Action Item No. 8h Page 7 of 7
Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
Annual Budget Status and Source of Funds
Source of funds is Tax Levy.
Financial Analysis and Summary
Project cost for analysis $400,000
Business Unit (BU) N/A
Effect on business performance N/A
(NOI after depreciation)
IRR/NPV (if relevant) N/A
CPE Impact None (as this will be funded by tax levy)
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST
(1) Presentation slides
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS
June 25, 2019 Motion 2019-10 South King County Fund Guiding Principles
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
175
Item No. 8h_supp
Meeting Date: Sept. 14, 2021
South King County Fund
Community Capacity Building
Andy Gregory, Sr. Program Manager
Community Engagement
Ilays Aden, Program Coordinator
Community Engagement
176
SKCF Community Goals
Develop equity-based
partnerships
Create opportunities for
BIPOC communities
Direct resources to underrepresented
populations
Improve economic and
environmental conditions
177
2
Work Done So Far
Piloted liaison model
Implemented Community
Grant Reviewers
Translated into multiple
languages
Funded many BIPOC-led
community groups
178
3
Next Steps
Continue and expand liaison work
Continue Community Grant Review
Build grassroots non-profit capacity
Create equitable pathways for
opportunities in Port-related
industries
179
4
Proposal
$400,000 over 3 years to support community capacity building
Contracting mechanism for liaisons and grant reviewers
Essential language interpretation and translation services
Support capacity building for grassroots non-profits and
community groups in South King County
Events support and logistics
Wrap-around services
Materials development
180
5
Justification for Spending from SKCF
The dollars spent on this contract will go directly to the
community through stipends and increased access to resources
Recruitment will target SKC-based BIPOC non-profits and
WMBE consultants
Capacity-building support helps to better position SKC
grassroots non-profits to access SKCF and other Port
opportunities
Including translation, interpretation and events support saves
ER and OEDI budget dollars and ensures continued funding for
these essential support services
181
6
Questions?
RETURN TO AGENDA
182
7
Item Number: 10a_order
Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
ORDER NO. 2021-09
AN ORDER OF THE PORT OF SEATTLE COMMISSION
To support the delivery of a plan to inventory the ecological, land
use (including zoning), and recreational site conditions of the 55
(fifty-five) acres of Port-owned land within North SeaTac Park
within 30 (thirty) days of this order.
PROPOSED
SEPTEMBER 14, 2021
INTRODUCTION
The Port of Seattle and the city of SeaTac ('SeaTac') have a long history of collaboration on North
SeaTac Park. The Port began acquiring the property for noise and safety mitigation starting in
1970. The idea of a park was originally proposed by the Greater Highline Parks Board in 1976.
The initial lease with SeaTac for the 195 acres of recreational land was signed in 1994 and, with
an agreed-upon extension, will expire in 2070. Since then, the park has become a significant asset
and an important airport operational buffer to the surrounding community. Based on
amendments to the original lease with SeaTac, 55.58 acres is designated for redevelopment; of
those, approximately 44 acres are leased to SeaTac under a 180-day lease revocation clause.
The Joint Advisory Committee (JAC) also intends to participate in the review of North SeaTac
park. The JAC is comprised of three SeaTac council members and two Port commissioners that
meet regularly, and exchange information related to the 2018 Interlocal Agreement (ILA)
between the City of SeaTac and the Port of Seattle, as designated in the ILA. The JAC met in
August 2021 and discussed a review of background materials surrounding North SeaTac Park
including jurisdiction, leases, and other matters.
As part of the Sustainable Airport Master Plan (SAMP) planning process, an approximate 11-acre
portion at the south end of North SeaTac Park was identified for Project L06 (a surface employee
parking lot). This portion of North SeaTac Park is largely forested with heavy concentrations of
invasive plant species and a system of trails used by bicyclists, runners, and walkers. The Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) recently stated that "L06 has been removed from the (Port of
Seattle's Sustainable Airport Master Plan)," which means this portion of North SeaTac Park is no
longer in consideration to become a parking lot. This order requires an inventory of the 55.85
acres of North SeaTac Park habitat and community uses, as well of a review of other background
history and related documents. The order requires that no planned actions be taken regarding
the future disposition of the park and leased properties until the inventory has been completed.
TEXT OF THE ORDER
The Port of Seattle Commission supports the delivery of a plan by the Executive Director to
inventory the attributes of the 55.58-acre parcel within the North SeaTac Park lease, including
Order No. 2021-09 North SeaTac Park Inventory
183
environmental (trees, wildlife, habitat), community, and recreational attributes of the 55.58
acres of North SeaTac Park.
The inventory plan should be coordinated in partnership with the city of SeaTac and the Joint
Advisory Committee and should reference recent materials developed by the Port and the City,
and their contractors, related to uses within the park.
The Port of Seattle Commission also supports the recommendations of the Joint Advisory
Committee to restart the "Working Group," comprised of staff from the city of SeaTac and the
Port and to review and confirm the background and jurisdictional materials related to North
SeaTac Park.
The Executive Director shall report to the Commission within 30 days with a plan that includes a
work program, a timeline, and a cost estimate to complete the inventory and review of
background materials, along with partnership terms with SeaTac. No actions shall be taken by
the Port in regard to lot L06 until such plan is delivered.
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER
Port of Seattle Commissioners are aware that community members' use North SeaTac Park for
biking, running, leisure, and walking. The community also participates in land stewardship efforts
by removing invasive plant species and maintaining the landscaping. Community leaders want to
further steward the area and groom it for outdoor recreation purposes and as a healthy forest.
Through the Airport Communities Ecology (ACE) Fund, the Port has a precedent of working with
airport-communities, nonprofit organizations, and researchers to produce assessments of treecanopies
and forest health conditions in parks and natural areas, as well as to develop plans to
restore forests and increase tree canopy. In a similar way, the inventory of resources and uses of
North SeaTac Park will help the Port, SeaTac, and local community members gain a better sense
of the lay-of-the-land and inform future management decisions.
Producing an inventory of resources and uses within this portion of North SeaTac Park will also
help guide the Port in meeting its goals and objectives found in the Century Agenda:
Goal 4: Be the greenest and most energy-efficient port in North America
Objective 11: Reduce air pollutants and carbon emissions
Goal 6: Be a Highly Effective Public Agency
Objective 17: Foster an environment of transparency, accountability, respect, leadership,
and fairness to give Port staff the tools to be exceptional public servants
Objective 18: Partner and engage with external stakeholders to build healthy, safe, and
equitable communities
RETURN TO AGENDA
Order No. 2021-09 North SeaTac Park Inventory
184
COMMISSION
AGENDA MEMORANDUM Item No. 10b
ACTION ITEM Date of Meeting September 14, 2021
DATE: August 27, 2021
TO: Stephen P. Metruck, Executive Director
FROM: Jon Sloan, Interim Director, Maritime Environment & Sustainability
Jane Dewell, Senior Manager, Marine Stormwater Utility
Srini Pendikatla, Program Manager, Marine Stormwater Utility
SUBJECT: Adoption of 2022 Marine Stormwater Utility Rates
ACTION REQUESTED
Request Commission authorization for the Executive Director to set 2022 Marine Stormwater
Utility rates with an increase of 4.6 percent.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The requested authorization will provide a 2022 rate structure to be adopted by the Marine
Stormwater Utility (Utility), in support of Utility obligations to protect water quality, rehabilitate
Port of Seattle (Port) stormwater assets, and support property managers and tenants in
compliance with stormwater permit conditions. The proposed rate is a 4.6 percent increase
from 2021. This rate is in line with the previous forecast presented to commission on
October 27, 2020.
JUSTIFICATION
A rate increase at the proposed level of 4.6 percent allows the Utility to improve water quality
to meet the Port's Century Agenda environmental goals by:
1. meeting all regulatory requirements;
2. investing in streamlining processes to improve efficiency and reduce costs of meeting
regulatory obligations; and
3. maintaining significant level of investment to rehabilitate the stormwater system and
increase the performance of the system to protect water quality in the Puget Sound.
DETAILS
The Utility was formed in 2014 to enable the Port to provide services, facilities, systems, and
programs for surface water and stormwater management and pollution control. The Utility
collects stormwater fees from the Port of Seattle, Northwest Seaport Alliance (NWSA), and
tenants and reinvests the income into maintaining and upgrading the stormwater
infrastructure. Prior to creating the Utility, the stormwater fees paid by the Port and its tenants
to the City of Seattle (City) were used to address City priorities and not stormwater needs at
Template revised January 10, 2019.
185
COMMISSION AGENDA Action Item No. 10b Page 2 of 5
Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
Port facilities. Benefits of Utility work include water quality protection in the Puget Sound as
well as providing stormwater infrastructure that better supports Port tenants' stormwater
investments.
The Utility rates apply to all Port-owned maritime (non-aviation) property, which includes land
managed by the NWSA. Tenants pay stormwater fees based on the area of their leaseholds. The
stormwater fees for the remaining unleased land at a facility are paid by the operating business.
The operating business is either the NWSA or the specific Port business (Economic
Development, Maritime Operations, Cruise, etc.) that oversees the unleased property. Rates
are set to recover the cost of operation and maintenance.
The Port Utility rates continue to be on average 20-25 percent lower than the City stormwater
rates pending final adoption of City rates by the City Council later this year.
The Utility rates are approved annually by the Commission. The Utility advisory committee
reviews and approves rate recommendations before final Commission approval. Projections last
year showed a need for a 4.6 percent increase in 2022 which is the recommended change.
Scope of Work
The Utility completed a full system assessment to obtain baseline conditions of the existing
stormwater infrastructure at the end of 2019. Over 60 urgent repairs of stormwater
infrastructure have been completed since 2016, reducing hazards and allowing the conveyance
system to function properly, which benefits overall water quality. Twenty-five tide gates have
been installed preventing the flow of tidal waters into the conveyance system, which is both a
safety and an infrastructure improvement. Other completed work includes administrative
efforts for policy creation, billing, and assisting tenants and Port business units to comply with
stormwater regulations.
Several capital projects have been completed to replace poorly functioning stormwater
infrastructure and to purchase large equipment (e.g., closed-circuit television truck, vacuum
truck) that supports this work. In 2020, the Utility began work on a strategic plan, soliciting
feedback from internal Port and external tenant stakeholders, and hosting a two-day workshop
with 20 Port participants. T he Utility completed the strategic plan in 2021 that is the
culmination of effort by staff, stakeholders and customers to establish a vision and mission for
the Utility to prioritize our work for the next five years This plan is intended to help better serve
customers and ensure a resilient Utility while supporting the Maritime industry. There are six
goals with 17 strategies each with specific tasks to support the guiding principles defined in the
mission and vision statements.
The projected expense and capital budgets in 2022 total approximately $7 million, which will be
used to:
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
186
COMMISSION AGENDA Action Item No. 10b Page 3 of 5
Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
Perform system assessments to monitor known conditions and be proactive in asset
management, i.e. monitor and repair before failure;
Repair damaged stormwater pipes and infrastructure;
Perform required regulatory stormwater management activities such as catch basin
inspections and sweeping;
Perform additional stormwater management activities, that enhance water quality
protection, such as dock cleaning and plaza washing;
Evaluate and implement innovations such as green stormwater infrastructure;
Implement technology to support mobile field inspection solutions;
Create dashboard for real-time data analysis of Stormwater Infrastructure Asset
Management System (SIAMS)
Create scoring matrix including equity, diversity and inclusion considerations to
prioritize infrastructure work
Implement year 2 of the strategic plan;
Complete the current capital program portfolio including pipe rehabilitation and
drainage improvements; and
Cover operational and administrative expenses including staff costs, utility taxes and
Port allocations.
Rate Criteria
The following criteria were used in considering the proposed 2022 rate:
1. Maintain adequate budget to meet all stormwater regulatory requirements and the
Port's Environmental Long-Range Plan and Utility Charter responsibilities including
rehabilitation of stormwater infrastructure.
2. Continue adequate funding to maintain and improve a high functioning stormwater
system to benefit the water quality of the Puget Sound.
3. Maintain a six-month operations and maintenance expense reserve for financial
prudence consistent with Port policy and best practices.
4. Maintain consistent rate over the 5-year projection
Schedule
The Utility advisory committee reviewed and approved the rate recommendation in early
August 2021. This committee consists of Port and NWSA operations leaders, real
estate/property management leaders and Port finance leaders. The Utility does not explicitly
seek external input, consistent with other public drainage utilities, but relies on the
committee's expertise. The public notice for Commission approval effectively seeks public input
similar to the City Council approval process for municipal utilities. If approved by the
Commission, the 2022 rates will be adopted by the Utility effective January 1, 2022. The Utility
will notify tenants of the upcoming rate change following adoption. Tenants can dispute billing
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
187
COMMISSION AGENDA Action Item No. 10b Page 4 of 5
Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
fees at any time by contacting Utility staff. A decision will be made within 60 days of receipt of
the dispute.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED
Alternative 1 Increase rates by 3 percent, the same rate change as for 2021
Cost Implications: Projected revenue in 2022 will be $6.67M
Pros:
(1) Lowest impact to tenants, NWSA and Port business units in 2022 than preferred
alternative.
(2) Continue lower rate to support economic recovery.
Cons:
(1) Higher average rate change path over the next five years compared to preferred
alternative, projecting an average of 5.2 percent, estimated at 6.5 percent between
2023 and 2025 and 3.5 percent in 2026 to meet increased capital spending in 2025.
(2) Not a consistent annual change which may make it more difficult for customers to
budget.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 2 Increase rates by 4.6 percent per 2020 forecast to Commission
Cost Implications: Project revenue in 2022 will be $6.77M
Pros:
(1) Lowest average rate change path over the next five years, projecting an average of 4.6
percent, estimated at 4.6 percent annually through 2026.
(2) Steady projected rate change over the next five years, consistent with 2020 forecast,
allows customers to better plan for budget changes.
Cons:
(1) Slightly higher fees for tenants, NWSA and Port business units in 2022 than
alternative.
This is the recommended alternative.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
All revenue collected by the Utility is separate from the Port's general funds and must be spent
on or for the benefit of the Port stormwater system. The proposed rate increase has several
positive implications including:
Maintain funding for critical stormwater infrastructure improvements,
Build a six-month reserve as sound fiscal policy consistent with standard Port procedure,
Reduce operating costs funded by the Port by funding all stormwater related
maintenance activities from business units and select tenants, and
Keep stormwater Utility rates lower than the City of Seattle.
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
188
COMMISSION AGENDA Action Item No. 10b Page 5 of 5
Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND
The Utility maintains a separate accounting fund, known as the stormwater utility fund, to
conduct all business. This fund is separate from the Port general funds and cannot be used for
any purpose other than administering, operating, maintaining, and improving the Port's
stormwater system. The Utility may borrow money from the Port funds as needed, provided
that such funds are paid back in full to the originating funds.
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST
(1) Marine Stormwater Utility Strategic Plan 2021-2025
(2) Presentation slides
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS [For information and examples, follow this link.]
October 27, 2020 The Commission approved Marine Stormwater Utility Rates for 2021.
October 8, 2019 The Commission approved Marine Stormwater Utility Rates for 2020.
October 9, 2018 The Commission approved Marine Stormwater Utility Rates for 2019.
November 14, 2017 The Commission approved Marine Stormwater Utility Rates for 2018.
November 18, 2014 Commission approved Resolution No. 3696, as amended, Authorizing
Stormwater Utility Formation, included utility rates for 2015 through 2017.
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
189
www.portseattle.org | July 2021
Item No. 10b attach 1
Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
PORT OF SEATTLE
MARINE STORMWATER UTILITY
STRATEGIC PLAN
2021-2025
190
CONTENTS
Acronyms & Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
First Five Years, 2014 2019 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Accomplishments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Utility Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Goals and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
- 2 -
191
ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS
BMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . best management practice
CCTV . . . . . . . . . . . . . closed caption television video
CIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . capital improvement project
FT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fishermen's Terminal
GNET . . . . . . . . . . . . . GraniteNet
GSI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . green stormwater infrastructure
ISGP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Industrial Stormwater General Permit
LMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Learning Management System
MIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maritime Industrial Center
MMPMG . . . . . . . . . . . Marine Maintenance Project Management Group
MM SWU . . . . . . . . . . . Marine Maintenance Stormwater Utility
MS4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
NWSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . Northwest Seaport Alliance
O&M. . . . . . . . . . . . . . operation & maintenance
OEDI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion
PM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . preventative maintenance
Port . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Port of Seattle
SIAMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . Stormwater Infrastructure Asset Management System
SOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . standard operating procedure
SPMG . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seaport Project Management Group
SPU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seattle Public Utilities
Utility . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marine Stormwater Utility
- 3 -
192
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Marine Stormwater Utility (Utility) of the Port of Seattle (Port) was created in 2014 to support meeting
or exceeding regulatory requirements for stormwater leaving Port facilities. The Utility operates under a cost
recovery model with all revenue used for the stormwater program associated with Port Maritime properties
managed by the Port and by the Northwest Seaport Alliance (NWSA). The first five years of Utility work, 2014
to 2019, focused on building the program's financial backbone, creating policies to document and guide the
work, and assessing stormwater infrastructure to obtain baseline data and prioritize future work. During these
early years, the Port created a cost-effective, innovative, and award-winning utility.
The year 2020 provided an opportunity to reflect on our brief history and plan for the Utility's future. This
strategic plan is the culmination of effort by staff, stakeholders and customers to define guiding principles and
prioritize our work for the next five years. This plan is intended to move us forward to better serve customers
and ensure a resilient Utility while supporting the Maritime industry.
To support our guiding principles, defined in mission and vision statements, this strategic plan includes six
goals with 17 strategies, each with specific tasks.
Mission Vision
Supporting a sustainable Maritime Industry with Leading the way to a clean, healthy and sustainable
innovative stormwater management that benefits Puget Sound.
local communities and marine life.
Goals:
The goals provide focus and efficiency for Utility work to benefit customers and the region while bringing
financial stability to future rate changes:.
1. Maintain and improve stormwater infrastructure
2. Reduce stormwater pollution leaving Port properties
3. Pursue innovation and new technologies
4. Strengthen communications with customers, stakeholders and the community
5. Achieve or exceed compliance related to federal, state and local stormwater regulations and legal
agreements
6. Improve processes within the current financial system
We intend to revisit this plan each year as the basis for annual business plans that track our progress, and to
review the plan every five years to update or change strategies in furtherance of Utility goals.
- 4 -
193
INTRODUCTION
The Port of Seattle (Port) is a special purpose government district founded in 1911 to promote economic
opportunities and quality of life in the Puget Sound region by advancing trade, travel, commerce, and job
creation in an equitable, accountable and environmentally responsible manner. The Port owns and operates
properties along the Duwamish waterway, Elliott Bay and the Puget Sound, with some portions managed by
the Northwest Seaport Alliance (NWSA). The Port's vision is to add 100,000 jobs through economic growth, for
a total of 300,000 Port-related jobs in the region, while reducing its environmental footprint.
The Marine Stormwater Utility (Utility) was initiated in 2014 under
a cost recovery model to support the Port in meeting stringent
and expanding Washington State and local stormwater regulations
while benefiting regional water quality. The Utility provides services
to customers to meet strict local, state and federal stormwater
regulations in support of the Maritime industry. Utility staff
completed a full assessment of the stormwater infrastructure system
in 2019 to obtain baseline data. This information is used to prioritize
infrastructure improvements to meet changing needs and add
resiliency in an aging system. The Utility installs green stormwater
infrastructure where feasible to reduce the impact of stormwater on
water quality while adding habitat and beautifying spaces.
In developing this Strategic Plan, the Utility incorporated other Portwide
efforts and priorities associated with core values and equity. For Tide gate inspection at Terminal 10
example, the Port created an Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion outfall
(OEDI) in 2019 to deepen current Port equity efforts and further
catalyze organization-wide, systemic change. These efforts were formalized in the Century Agenda to "become
a Model for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion."The OEDI created a strategic plan to implement these changes,
and the Utility includes equity into our decision making and work practices.
In 2020, Utility staff created this Strategic Plan with input from customers and stakeholders to focus future
efforts and support the Port as "the Greenest, and Most Energy Efficient Port in North America."
Core Values
In addition to the Port's values1, the Utility adds the following as core values for our specific work:
Collaboration Work jointly and cooperate with stakeholders
Efficiency Work effectively to save effort and money
Innovation Create unique stormwater treatment, practices and controls
Integrity Adhere to a code of conduct that supports high standards
Safety Ensure staff work in ways that avoid harm, injury and loss
1 Port of Seattle Valueswww.portseattle.org/careers/who-we-are
- 5 -
194
FIRST FIVE YEARS, 2014 2019
The idea of creating the Utility began in the late 2000s, was actively discussed by Port leadership in 2012 to
2014, and resulted in the official creation on November 25, 2014, by Commission Resolution No. 3696. Much
of the foundational work involved finances, legal issues, and coordinating with the City of Seattle (Seattle
Public Utilities, SPU) on the separation of what was to become two stormwater systems: one managed by the
Port's Utility, and the other by SPU. While the separation was not physical (i.e., the assets are still connected
and discharge to local waterbodies), significant time was spent identifying where one system meets the other,
resulting in connection points. There are over 120 connections between the two systems, and additional
points are added when identified through infrastructure assessments or other means. We meet with SPU
annually to review these connections, highlight changes to stormwater systems including necessary legal
agreements, and discuss permit issues associated with regional water quality.
One of the first tasks in forming a Utility was creating a financial system to bill and collect revenue so that
budgets could be developed to perform the work of improving water quality from Port Maritime properties.
Our rate categories mirror SPU's, but at a lower fee and are similar to categories across the industry. The Utility
endeavors to provide essential stormwater services to customers at a better value than when our system was a
small part of the much larger SPU system. This is possible because we now have dedicated funding for the Port
stormwater system's upkeep and operation and maintenance.
A second task of the new Utility was to hire staff to run the program. While Port departments and systems
existed to support the stormwater program, subject matter experts in stormwater and utilities were hired
to lead the program. Existing field staff from the Port's Marine Maintenance department, who were already
performing stormwater regulatory and operation and maintenance inspections, became part of the new
Utility team. Utility office and field staff now total 17 (four office staff and 13 field staff). The Utility office staff
work closely with Utility field staff to determine and prioritize the Utility's work, which includes performing
baseline assessments of the stormwater pipes to better understand the extent and conditions of the system,
and building upon existing stormwater work to meet or exceed stormwater regulations.
Stormwater Utility Team, February 2020
1 mile I
- 6 -
195
STORMWATER UTILITY
BY THE NUMBERS
Shilshole Bay
S hilshole Bay Marina 999.6 acres
Green
Lake of drainage area
Ballard 71 miles/374,877 ft
Ballard Lock s
of stormwater pipe
2 1 2,875 catch basins
Magnolia Fishermen's Te rminal
223 outfalls
197 tenan ts (Port & NWSA)
Terminal 91
Queen An ne 881 manh oles
Lake
Union 3,455 dra ins, filters, vaults, etc.
3 Terminal 86
Pier 69 - Port Headquarters Downtow n
4 Seattle
Pier 66
5
Port of Seattle International
District
Properties1. Salmon Bay Marina
2. Maritime Industrial Center Elliott Bay
Ter minal 46
3. Smith Cove Cruise Terminal
4. World Trade Center Terminal 18 S ODO
5. Bell Harbor Marina
6. Harbor Island Marina
Ter mi nal 30
Terminal 5
Puget Sound West Seattle
Termin al 103 6
Ter mi nal 108
Termin al 107
Geo rgetown
Beacon Hill
1 mile I Term inal 115
Duw
1. Salmon Bay Marina R ainier Valley
2. Maritime Industrial Center So uth
3. Smith Cove Cruise Terminal amish RiverPark Duwamis h River
4. World Trade Center
5. Bell Harbor Marina People's Park
6. Harbor Island Marina - 7 -
196
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Since the Utility's inception in 2014, the focus has been on improving water quality leaving
Port Maritime properties. From meeting regulatory requirements, to maintaining over
70 miles of stormwater pipe assets of various condition, to advancing green stormwater
infrastructure projects, the Utility has many accomplishments in its brief history. The Utility
is proud of its successes in such a short time including:
Strong and consistent regulatory compliance
Complete system condition assessments
Effective repair, maintenance and capital improvement program
Innovative water quality techniques and green stormwater infrastructure projects
Strong education, outreach and operational partnerships
Financial stewardship and stability
- 8 -
197
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Regulatory - Achieve full compliance year after year
The Port holds a Phase I municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit for Maritime properties that
includes facilities managed by the Northwest Seaport Alliance (NWSA) and by tenants. Some tenants hold
other types of stormwater permits to cover specialized operations, such as Industrial Stormwater General
Permits (ISGPs), boat yard and individual stormwater permits, but are universally covered under the Port's
MS4 permit. The Port also holds an ISGP for the Marine Maintenance North Operations site, where vehicle
maintenance and equipment cleaning are conducted. The Utility supports work to meet requirements for the
MS4 permit, including updating stormwater pollution prevention plans, training staff, educating customers
and general public outreach, inspecting and maintaining the MS4 and annual reporting. Utility staff support
water quality monitoring for the Port's ISGP-permitted facility. The Washington State Department of Ecology
issues these stormwater permits and oversees and inspects sites covered under stormwater permits. The City
of Seattle stormwater codes also apply to Port properties within city limits; King County code applies to those
not within a city jurisdiction. With a bevy of regulations to follow, we work with customers and review internal
operations and projects to ensure regulatory compliance.
The Port's illicit discharge detection and elimination system addresses illicit connections and discharges to
the MS4, and spill response and reporting is supported by Marine Maintenance Dispatch 24-hour response
line with assistance from Port environmental staff. Utility staff has equipment and expertise to respond to and
cleanup spills to the MS4 system.
System Assessment - Completed full condition assessment of
stormwater system
Upon inception, a top priority of the Utility was to understand the condition of our assets. To accomplish
this, equipment was purchased to conduct closed caption television video (CCTV) recording for all 70 plus
miles of stormwater pipes between 2016 and 2019. Every condition found, from a small crack, break or root
growing through the pipe wall to a full collapse of the pipe, was assigned a score. The pipe asset then received
an overall score based on all the conditions found across the length of the pipe. We completed this system
assessment at the end of 2019 and now have baseline condition data for all pipe assets, which provides the
basis for prioritizing future work to rehabilitate the stormwater system. Some assets have already met the
criteria for rehabilitation, attaining a specific subset of scores from the condition assessment, without any work
performed. Some assets will need to be cleaned only while other assets will also need a point repair, say to fix
a 10-foot break in a 100-foot long pipe, or entirely replaced to meet the criteria for rehabilitation.
Camera used for pipe assessments CCTV truck cockpit
- 9 -
198
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Pipe Repair - Over 60 critical pipe repairs completed
As a result of assessments, over 60 pipe
segments were identified as requiring
immediate repair (score of 90 or above)
because they were unusable for conveying
stormwater or created safety risks from
potential holes forming above voids. Utility
staff excavated and repaired these assets
as soon as feasible under an urgent repair
program. In total, we completed these
urgent repairs between 2017 and 2020 to
ensure continual and safe Port operations.
Screenshot from assessment video showing full pipe collapse
Outfall Rehabilitation - Installed 21 tide gate valves to protect the system from
inundation
Because our stormwater conveyance
system directly discharges through outfalls
into regional waters, outfall rehabilitation
became another important focus of initial
work. Some outfalls lie below high tide,
and as tides rise, river, bay and sound
waters can enter the stormwater system.
This causes two major concerns: the
system can flood parts of a facility, and
corrosion and biological growth increases
within the pipes. To limit tidal influence
on the stormwater system, the Utility
installed tide gate valves (or tide valves) Pipe repair
on outfalls. A tide valve remains closed,
keeping receiving waters from entering the
system, and only opens when pressure builds from upstream flows. Through 2020, we installed 21 tide valves
throughout the stormwater system.
- 10 -
199
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Green Stormwater Infrastructure Delivering resiliency to stormwater
management
The Utility strives to go above and beyond stormwater
regulations by incorporating green stormwater
infrastructure and treatment systems in areas where
they are not required by regulation or codes. The
Port also participates in Salmon-Safe third-party
certification for Maritime parks and public access
areas and has been certified since 2008. Stormwater
and habitat projects are two important elements
in maintaining Salmon-Safe certification , a leading
Installing tide valve
movement to help Pacific salmon thrive.
Terminal 86 Bio-filtration Facility The
Utility's first bio-filtration facility
A ponding problem on the Centennial Park bike and pedestrian trail near Terminal 86 provided the
opportunity to develop the Utility's first in-ground bio-filtration (rain garden) facility. Rather than simply regrading
and altering a stormwater pipe to reduce ponding at a busy junction in the trail, the Utility evaluated
and installed a small rain garden to remove potential pollutants. This added bio-filtration treatment to the
stormwater infrastructure, and since it is in a busy public area, provides a visible location for educational
signage about rain garden functions.
Bio-filtration facility along Centennial Park Signage posted adjacent to Rain garden explaining
benefits to the environment
- 11 -
200
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Terminal 102 Downspout Oyster Shell Treatment Barrels Innovative solution to treat
stormwater pollution
Oyster shells, which bind heavy metals such as
zinc and copper, are used to treat stormwater
from roof runoff at Terminal 102 commercial
buildings. Zinc and copper are detrimental to
aquatic life, particularly endangered salmon. The
oyster shells are contained in barrels connected
to roof downspouts, and as stormwater flows
through, heavy metals and sediment are
captured. The oyster shells are changed out
each year since effectiveness decreases over
time. Typically, newly purchased shells are used,
but in September 2020, oyster shells that had
been in the barrels were 'refreshed,' employing a
media washing machine invented by Utility staff Oyster Barrel and sign at T102
and built by Marine Maintenance. To evaluate
treatment effectiveness, water samples are
collected, and pollutant levels analyzed from water that enters and leaves the barrels. Data show a 30% to 50%
reduction in metal concentrations.
In addition to Terminal 102, oyster shells are used in stormwater treatment at Terminal 46, Marine Maintenance
North Operations and Terminal 5 Transit Shed. The media washing machine helps reduce the amount of new
oyster shells purchased and increases longevity of the shells in use.
Splash Boxx Portable planter boxes for
commercial and industrial locations
In 2014, the Port installed two 'Splash Boxx' systems at
Terminal 91 to treat runoff from a building with a galvanized
roof. Galvanized metal may leach zinc. The Splash Boxx bioretention
system was initially studied as part of a King County
Conservation District funded 'Moving Green Infrastructure
Forward Project.' In 2019, the Port moved these boxes to treat
Flowers growing in the Splash Boxx
stormwater at two locations: a roof at Maritime Industrial
Center (MIC), and the Marine Maintenance Horton Street
south parking lot. This placement of the two systems allows
comparison of bio-retention media treatment from different
use areas. The soil media is a custom mix of sand, wood chips,
and biochar and planted with native, drought tolerant plants.
The inflows and outflows are monitored to determine removal
effectiveness of zinc, copper, and turbidity. Initial Splash Boxx
results reflect 60 to 70% reductions in copper and 85 to 90%
reductions in zinc. Average reductions in turbidity for the
longer established system were 70%.
Splash Boxx at MIC
- 12 -
201
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Awards
The Utility won two American Association of Port Authority
environmental awards in 2017 and 2019. In 2017, we won the
Comprehensive Environmental Management award for the
"Formation and Operation of the Marine Stormwater Utility,"
which summarized the efforts to create the Utility and the
first few years of work. In 2019, we won the Environmental
Enhancement category award of excellence for the "Innovative
Stormwater Operations and Treatment Techniques."This
application detailed three techniques developed by the Utility,
and by the Port before the Utility was created, including a dock
scrubber that recovers wash water with a vacuum, oyster shell Dock scrubber
treatment barrels to treat roof runoff, and the media washing
machine that refreshes used oyster shells for reuse in stormwater
treatment systems.
The media washing machine also won an internal port-wide innovation award for 2019 quarters one and two,
and the annual 2019 award and the people's choice award by Port employees.
Media washing Machine
- 13 -
202
PRIORITIES
The primary focus of the Utility has been to improve water quality in support of the Port's
Century Agenda strategy to be the greenest, and most energy efficient port in North
America. Our vision and mission continue with and align with this aspirational goal. In
order to be the greenest Port, the Utility has prioritized five key areas: Infrastructure;
Sustainability; Climate Change; Equity, Diversity and Inclusion; and Habitat.
- 14 -
203
PRIORITIES
Infrastructure
One basic function of the Utility is to move stormwater runoff from facilities through conveyance systems
to receiving waters. A complex infrastructure of pipes and structures performs this essential function
throughout Port facilities. The first step was to understand the details of the system, including pipe locations,
characteristics and conditions, from our completed assessment program. The next step will be to rehabilitate
the aging system over time to continue this function but also add components such as green stormwater
infrastructure and innovative treatment to remove pollutants and continually improve regional water quality.
As a core value, innovation is at the root of our work and helps to meet our vision of leading the way to a clean,
healthy and sustainable Puget Sound.
To rehabilitate our stormwater system as guided by the Port's Century Agenda, we will need to repair
or replace many existing stormwater pipes through excavation or trenchless technologies, install new
stormwater systems, add treatment systems, install green stormwater infrastructure and continue innovating.
This work will continue for years to come but prioritization using the data from the assessment program, as
well as continuing reassessments will be the key to proactively upgrade the infrastructure.
Sustainability Framework
In 2019, the Port developed a sustainable project framework to evaluate all Port capital improvement projects.
The framework includes lifecycle consideration for energy, habitat, waste, and stormwater. Capital projects
are screened and placed into three different categories that apply increasing levels of effort to maximize
sustainability and environmental benefit. Stormwater is one of eight categories in the framework and Utility
staff help evaluate projects and participate on project review teams to ensure compliance with regulations
and approve of changes to the stormwater system.
Climate Change/Resilience Planning
Climate change and resilience are complex and emerging issues, and the Port has identified this as a high
priority for the future. The Port drafted a climate adaptation plan in 20152 to address rising sea levels and
intensifying storms and fulfill the Port's role as a steward of the environment and maritime industry. One key
result is that the stormwater system is not currently capable of handling sea level rise. The Utility will update
the plan to address specific elements for stormwater infrastructure adaptation and resilience considering
regional efforts by the City of Seattle, King County, and Washington state. Another element of the Port's
climate change planning is greenhouse gas reduction targets that align with the Paris Climate Agreement.
These targets include an interim goal to cut emissions in half by 2030. The targets also entail a longrange
commitment to deeply "decarbonize" maritime activity and make Port operations carbon neutral or carbon
negative by 2050.
Evaluating how climate change will impact our stormwater infrastructure, water quality, and other Port
concerns and to plan accordingly is a long-term endeavor. Phasing in system resilience will require in-depth
analysis and access to data being compiled by other local, state, federal and international entities. We will
collaborate with other Ports and government organizations grappling with this to maximize efforts in
addressing the impacts of climate change on coastal communities and the maritime industry. We don't have
the answers on climate change or sea level rise, but we can ensure our system is built to adapt to changes to
continue to serve our customers and the maritime industry.
2 Port of Seattle. June 19, 2015. Climate Change Adaptation Plan for Port of Seattle Waterfront Properties.
- 15 -
204
PRIORITIES
Equity, Diversity and Inclusion
Understanding how the Utility can address the needs of diverse and historically marginalized communities,
from underfunded neighborhoods in the Duwamish Valley to Indigenous peoples who have treaty rights
to lands and waters that the Port abuts, is a long-term endeavor. Water quality and pollution prevention
are important issues for the region, and Black, Indigenous, and other communities of color often suffer
disproportionally from pollution. The University of Washington Department of Environmental and
Occupational Health Sciences has created a map3 showing health disparities based on living and economic
conditions. Identifying opportunities to improve water quality for these communities will involve direct
community engagement, some of which is occurring through the Port's habitat, energy and community
enhancement projects.
The Port's OEDI is developing an equity tool to look at historically marginalized communities within the King
County region. This tool evaluates the entire region and provides a score for each census block group. This
score gives a numeric value to the disparities within the community. Utility staff will collaborate with the OEDI
team to ensure that equity continues to develop as an underlying principle of the work we do.
Habitat Collaboration
While the Port has a dedicated habitat team working to restore degraded sites, address habitat and
remediation mitigation requirements, and create shared spaces to benefit people and the environment,
there are potential interconnections between habitat and stormwater efforts. The Utility and habitat teams
collaborate on ongoing and new opportunities that include Salmon-Safe recertification and potential for
stormwater-habitat interface and benefits at Port facilities.
t ulaltx Village Park and Shoreline Habitat before
after
3 https://deohs.washington.edu/washington-environmental-health-disparities-map-project
- 16 -
205
PRIORITIES
Duwamish River People's Park and Shoreline Habitat Restoration
Replacing stormwater treatment media in vaults at Terminal 46
- 17 -
206
UTILITY RATES
The Utility operates on a cost recovery model, and the revenues fund the entirety of the
stormwater regulatory and infrastructure program. Bills paid by customers are invested
in infrastructure and services to improve water quality, including daily operations,
regulatory maintenance, infrastructure assessment and repair, and capital projects
including green infrastructure.
- 18 -
207
UTILITY RATES
Rates are adjusted each year by reviewing the baseline budget against forecasted spending, typically five
years out, and anticipating revenue for the current year. Planning work for the coming year includes new
capital projects, increased levels of service to benefit customers, and cost reductions from streamlining
operations. A new rate is calculated for this total expenditure. The forecast budget is presented to the Utility's
Rate Advisory Committee, which includes Port and NWSA executives, who provide valuable insight and
represent Maritime business operations and tenant interests. The Committee provides recommendations for a
proposed Utility rate, which is then presented to the Port Commission for final approval before adopting new
rates for the coming year.
The table below shows the projected rate path approved in 2020 for the next five years. The rates are subject
to Port of Seattle Commission approval annually.
RATE PATH 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 AVERAGE
SWU Rate Increase 3% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.28%
Since the inception of the Utility, it is a priority to keep our rates lower than SPU to provide customers financial
savings while delivering additional services such as proactive infrastructure assessment and repair. The Utility
is now able to maintain and improve stormwater infrastructure, which benefits regional water quality, at a
lower rate than we previously paid SPU. The graph below shows a comparison of the drainage rates for the
"very heavy" rate category for the Port's Utility and SPU.
- 19 -
208
GOALS AND STRATEGIES
The Utility began work on a strategic plan in late 2019. The effort evolved over six
months with assistance from a consultant, Veda Environmental, and a core team that
planned and developed material for an internal workshop. The purpose of the workshop
was to engage stakeholders in creating the strategic vision, mission, and to identifying
priority goals to guide the work during the lifetime of this plan in support of the vision
and mission for the future.
- 20 -
209
GOALS AND STRATEGIES
To gather information and lay groundwork for the workshop, two surveys were developed to gather input
from stakeholders: one for Port Utility and environmental staff, and another for external customers and Port
real estate staff. The overall response rate was 45% and this information provided key input for workshop
materials. The workshop was convened virtually in August 2020 and involved two three-hour sessions on
separate days. The workshop included 16 internal stakeholders from across the Port discussing all aspects of
the Utility, and ultimately provided the basis for this document.
In developing the Utility goals, considerations included overall sustainability and tie-in with the Port's
Sustainability Framework and Climate Change planning and adaptation. Common themes included
innovation and importance of a skilled and knowledgeable team with thorough understanding of stormwater
infrastructure and regulations. During the workshops, Port staff contributed to defining six goals in four
categories: 1. Operations, Infrastructure & Innovation; 2. Relationships, Collaboration & Communication; 3.
Regulatory; and 4. Financial. Seventeen strategies with associated tasks were identified to support each goal.
The six goals with 17 strategies are listed below, with detailed tasks, measures and timeframes in the following
table. The timeframe refers to the year the associated task will be started with items listed as "annually" starting
in 2021. Outcome is included with the intention of revisiting this plan annually to update progress against the
measure in addition to directing and/or adding new tasks.
1. Operations, Infrastructure & Innovation
Asset management is a crucial Utility tool for improving water quality. Three goals and six strategies focus on
infrastructure maintenance, repair and installation while highlighting sustainability and innovation. Applying
a sustainability lens to our work and building resilient infrastructure can support the Utility and the Port in
adapting to climate change.
1. Maintain and improve stormwater infrastructure
Strategies:
1. Bring all infrastructure to rehabilitated status
2. Develop robust asset management program including continual assessment and reassessment of
infrastructure
3. Build a resilient system and plan for future climate change adaptation
2. Reduce stormwater pollution leaving Port properties
Strategies:
4. Increase awareness of best management practices (BMPs) across all Maritime properties
5. Expand use of BMPs across all Maritime properties
6. Streamline process to more rapidly respond to spills
3. Pursue innovation and new technologies
Strategies:
7. Support piloting and advancing new technology and creative solutions
- 21 -
210
GOALS AND STRATEGIES
2. Relationships, Collaboration & Communication
We cannot operate effectively without relationships with customers, community members, the broader Port
and NWSA staff and stakeholders.
4. Strengthen communications with customers, stakeholders and the community
Strategies:
8. Improve outward facing communication
9. Improve public and tenant access to information
10. Improve internal Port and NWSA communications
3. Regulatory
Meeting regulatory requirements is foundational to our work, and exceeding permit requirements supports
our mission.
5. Achieve or exceed compliance related to federal, state and local stormwater regulations
and legal agreements
Strategies:
11. Ensure compliance with permit conditions
12. Streamline tracking and reporting processes for permit compliance
13. Expand Port staff awareness of regulations
14. Pursue activities that exceed permit compliance, serve customer needs and protect water quality
4. Financial
We strive to provide reliable and efficient services to our customers to meet regulations while
investing in infrastructure to ensure future compliance. One hundred percent of Utility revenue is
used to fund Utility programs.
6. Improve processes within the current financial system
Strategies:
15. Increase transparency in billing and spending
16. Improve accountable and fiscally responsible programs
17. Simplify Utility financial reporting structure
- 22 -
211
GOALS AND STRATEGIES
Category 1. Operations, Infrastructure & Innovation
Goal 1. Maintain and improve stormwater infrastructure
Strategy #1: Bring all infrastructure to rehabilitated status
Tasks Measure Timeframe Outcome
Streamlined processes to
improve coordination with
Increase coordination with SPMG and
projects that involve storm-
MMPMG on projects relating to storm- Annually
water infrastructure changes
water
100% of proposed projects
reviewed
33% rehabilitated (GNET
Rehabilitate 75% of stormwater system
score of less than 30 and 2021
by 2035, annual goal
cleaned with a month)
Complete T18 outfall project 2021
Complete infrastructure upgrade CIP
work Complete projects in other
Annually
CIPs
Complete contracting for Cure-In-Place
Executed contract 2021
Pipe work to support rehabilitation
Create priority list for infrastructure
work including capital program and Priority list in use 2021
expense repairs
Obtain the grout trailer for repair work Available and ready to use 2021
Create dashboard for real-time data
analysis of Stormwater Infrastructure Dashboard in use 2022
Asset Management System (SIAMS)
Create scoring matrix including equity,
diversity and inclusion considerations Matrix in use 2022-2023
to prioritize infrastructure work
Create specification for pipe abandon-
Complete specification 2023-2024
ment
Implement abandoned pipe protocol
Conduct pipe lateral sealing 2025
per specification
Strategy #2: Develop robust asset management program including continual assessment and reassessment
of infrastructure
Tasks Measure Timeframe Outcome
Create and implement policy to address Create initial preventative
2021
pipe reassessments maintenance (PM) schedule
Complete SIAMS plan Full plan document 2021-2022
Reroute infrastructure and add clea-
Identify locations needing
nouts to improve accessibility to infra- 2023
improved accessibility
structure
Complete assessment of complex, inac-
CCTV video of 100% of pipes 2025
cessible areas
- 23 -
212
GOALS AND STRATEGIES
Strategy #3: Build a resilient system and plan for future climate change adaptation
Tasks Measure Timeframe Outcome
Conduct study to evaluate impact of
Complete study 2023
climate change on system
Updated SIAMS plan with
Integrate climate resiliency findings into
climate change planning 2024-2025
SIAMS
impact
Collaborate with municipalities and Initiate partnerships and par-
2025
stakeholders on regional actions ticipate in annual meetings
Goal 2. Reduce stormwater pollution leaving Port properties
Strategy #4: Increase awareness of BMPs across all Maritime properties
Tasks Measure Timeframe Outcome
Assess gaps in current BMP training Annually starting
Identify target audiences
process in 2021
Determine priority list of facilities for Create annual list of priority Annually starting
BMP training rollout facilities in 2022
Conduct staff education workshops on Annually starting
Complete Staff Brownbag(s)
BMPs in 2022
Create scoring matrix for tenants with
equity, diversity and inclusion consider- Create annual list of priority Annually starting
ations and use to prioritize tenant BMP tenants in 2022
training
Conduct tenant education workshops Complete Tenant Work- Annually starting
on BMPs shop(s) in 2023
Strategy #5: Expand use of BMPs across all Maritime properties
Tasks Measure Timeframe Outcome
Secondary containment,
Provide tenant access to storage BMPs tents, covers, etc. available 2021-2022
for rent
Additional PMs to perform
Increase maintenance schedules 2023
work
Identify facilities for additional BMP List of facilities and appropri-
2024
implementation ate BMP(s) for each
Strategy #6: Streamline process to more rapidly respond to spills
Tasks Measure Timeframe Outcome
Complete training for rele-
Train staff in spill reporting protocols Annually
vant staff
Develop plan for funding spill investiga- Complete funding plan for
2021
tions, cleanup and reporting spill response and cleanup
Create uniform procedures for spill Complete SOP for spill re-
2021
reporting across all Port properties porting
- 24 -
213
GOALS AND STRATEGIES
Goal 3. Pursue innovation and new technologies
Strategy #7: Support piloting and advancing new technology and creative solutions
Tasks Measure Timeframe Outcome
Collaborate on innovations with other Share information with stake-
Annually
stakeholders, municipalities and ports holders
Develop production line for oyster shell Completed and working
2022
use and reuse production line in use
Select and test (pilot program) technol-
1 - 2 technologies in place 2022
ogies identified by Pure Blue
Identify areas for innovative/green
Identify 2-3 high priority
stormwater treatment opportunities on 2022
opportunities
Port properties & facilities
Tie into WA Maritime Blue (innovation Collaboration with new busi-
2023
center at FT) accelerator program nesses
Install new GSI CIP project(s) Complete installation 2024
Bell Harbor Marina at Pier 66
- 25 -
214
GOALS AND STRATEGIES
Category 2. Relationships, Collaboration & Communication
Goal 4. Strengthen communications with customers, stakeholders and the community
Strategy #8: Improve outward facing communication
Tasks Measure Timeframe Outcome
Continue Salmon-Safe parks and public
Meet annual milestones Annually
access areas certification
Apply for environmental awards Complete applications Bi-annually
Present at conferences to enhance
Completed presentation Bi-annually
visibility
Demonstrate the work / benefits of the
Annually starting
Utility to near-port neighbors/commu- Exhibit at community events
in 2022
nity
Sponsor art project to paint Splash
Completed art project 2022
Boxxes
Quarterly starting
Social media posts
in 2022
Enhance visibility of the benefits of New signage installed 2024
SWU in local communities Stormwater and water quality
integrated in Port commu- 2024
nications
Strategy #9: Improve public and tenant access to information
Tasks Measure Timeframe Outcome
Update webpage with SWU info Updated website live Annually
List of elements that may
Identify equity, diversity and inclusion
benefit BIPOC and underrep- 2022
benefits of stormwater program
resented populations
Outreach and education on stormwater Annually starting
1 - 2 events per year
programs to Duwamish community in 2023
Strategy #10: Improve internal Port and NWSA communications
Tasks Measure Timeframe Outcome
Attend other department meetings to Attend 1 - 2 departments per
Annually
describe SWU work year
Coordinate with NWSA stakeholders Quarterly meetings Annually
Coordinate with MM SWU crews Monthly meetings Annually
Coordinate with consultant team(s) Monthly meetings Annually
Expand/improve current tenant move Create and implement check-
2021
in-move out agreement system list for tenant turnover
T25 habitat project coordi-
2021-2022
Habitat and stormwater collaboration nation
Other habitat opportunities 2024
- 26 -
215
GOALS AND STRATEGIES
Category 3. Regulatory
Goal 5. Achieve or exceed compliance related to federal, state and
local stormwater regulations and legal agreements
Strategy #11: Ensure compliance with permit conditions
Tasks Measure Timeframe Outcome
All requirements completed
Conduct all required inspections and
and documented in annual Annually
actions for MS4 permit
report
All requirements completed
Fulfill all requirements for Industrial perand
documented in annual Annually
mit
report
Strategy #12: Streamline tracking and reporting processes for permit compliance
Tasks Measure Timeframe Outcome
Finalize and configure electronic field Purchase and configuration of
2021
data collection software software
Implement electronic field data collection
Field crews use new software 2022
software
Strategy #13: Expand Port staff awareness of regulations
Tasks Measure Timeframe Outcome
New staff complete training
Develop onboarding plan for new staff Annually
within first 3 months
Develop online/LMS training for staff Training launched in LMS 2021
Track stormwater trainings for all required Annual training taken by 100%
2021
staff of all required staff
Strategy #14: Pursue activities that exceed permit compliance, serve customer needs and protect water
quality
Tasks Measure Timeframe Outcome
Define activities that exceed compliance Checklist of elements that
2021
with MS4 permit exceed permit compliance
Develop craft specific handbooks that go Finalize handbooks to each
2021
beyond O&M manual requirements craft
Implement craft specific orientation to Complete 30-min craft specific
2022
new handbook overviews of handbook
- 27 -
216
GOALS AND STRATEGIES
Category 4. Financial
Goal 6. Improve processes within the current financial system
Strategy #15: Increase transparency in billing and spending
Tasks Measure Timeframe Outcome
Quarterly summary report of SWU work Annually starting
Quarterly summary completed
performed in 2022
Develop Utility Rate table for 2022 with
Complete table 2021
5-year forecast
Determine if credits can be given to ten- Complete research; if feasible,
2021
ants for stormwater improvements complete policy
Create dashboard for real-time data anal-
Dashboard in use 2021
ysis of billing information
Annually starting
Monthly billing report out to BU Monthly report completed
in 2022
Strategy #16: Improve accountable and fiscally responsible programs
Tasks Measure Timeframe Outcome
Updated revenue system with
Create auditable revenue system simplified connection to 2022
Business Unit expense
Incorporate equity, diversity and inclusion
Meet Port goals 2021
elements into contract decisions
Cash balance available in
Develop contingency for allocations 2022
stormwater fund
Build 6-month O & M reserve per Port Cash balance available in
2023
policy stormwater fund
Cash balance available in
Develop capital reserve 2025
stormwater fund
Strategy #17: Simplify Utility financial reporting structure
Tasks Measure Timeframe Outcome
Recommend changes to
Evaluate subclass structure 2022
Finance
Reduce and/or combine sub-
Eliminate subclasses 2023
classes
Embedded rate model in bud-
Automate and simplify rate model 2023
get system
- 28 -
217
PORT OF SEATTLE
COMMISSIONERS
Stephanie Bowman
Ryan Calkins
Sam Cho
Fred Felleman
Peter Steinbrueck
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Stephen P. Metruck
Port of Seattle
P.O. Box 1209
Seattle, WA 98111
U.S.A.
(206) 787-3000
www.portseattle.org
- 29 -
218
July 2021
Item No. 10b supp
Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
Marine Stormwater Utility
2022 Rate Adoption
September 14, 2021
Jane Dewell, Senior Manager, Marine Stormwater Utility
Srini Pendikatla, Program Manager, Marine Stormwater Utility
219
Stormwater Utility Rate Recommendation
Recommend 4.6% rate increase in 2022 guided by Advisory
Steering Committee (same as 2020 forecast)
Rate criteria includes:
Maintain adequate budget to meet Port's Long-range Plan and Utility Charter
responsibilities
Continue investment to maintain and improve a high functioning stormwater
system to protect water quality
Maintain a 6-month operations and maintenance reserve consistent with Port
policy and best practices
Maintain consistent rate over the 5-year projection
220
2
Stormwater Utility Operating Budget
2021 Approved 2022 Proposed
$ in 000's 2020 Actual 2021 Forecast
Budget Budget
Revenue 6,374 6,464 6,464 6,768
Expenses
SWU Admin 2,353 2,453 2,144 2,647
Maintenance 1,696 3,635 2,726 3,302
Total Expense 4,234 6,088 4,870 5,949
Capital Program 326 1,400 1,114 1,000
221
3
2022 Proposed Annual Rates
City 2022 Port 2022 Port rate % lower
Stormwater Rate Category
Rates are shown as $ per 1000 sq. ft. than City
Undeveloped (0 15% Impervious)
Regular Impact $53.75 $41.23 30.35%
Low Impact $31.98 $24.14 32.48%
Light ( 16 35% Impervious)
Regular Impact $80.28 $63.76 25.91%
Low Impact $62.85 $50.15 25.32%
Medium (36 65% Impervious)
Regular Impact $114.19 $92.61 23.31%
Low Impact $92.31 $74.49 23.92%
Heavy ( 66 85% Impervious) $151.14 $124.25 21.64%
Very Heavy (86 100% Impervious) $180.07 $146.97 22.52%
222
4
Appendix
223
Action Requested
Request Commission
authorization for the
Executive Director to set
2022 Marine Stormwater
Utility rates with an
increase of 4.6 percent
224
6
Utility History & Highlights
2014 Stormwater Utility Charter adopted by Commission
2016-2021 Completed 60 urgent repairs and installed 25 tide
gates
2019 Completed full stormwater system assessment - 70 mi
2020 Utility funds all stormwater regulatory work
2021
Completed infrastructure projects: T18 outfalls, T25 oil-water
separator, pipe replacements
Completed first strategic plan identifying guiding principles and
future work for 2021-2025
225
7
Strategic Plan
226
8
2022 Proposed Budget Summary
Capital Budget of $1M Maintenance Budget of $3.3M
Pipe rehabilitation (replacement Pipe re-assessments and repair
and cure-in-place lining) Dock and plaza cleaning
Drainage improvements Catch basin inspections and clean
out
Administrative budget of $2.6M Roof inspections
Staff costs Inspections of tide gates and
municipal permit treatment
Consultant support systems
Utility taxes Sweeping municipal permit
Allocations and overhead properties
227
9
Port Rates Continue Below City Rates
$185.00
City
$175.00
$165.00
22.5%
$155.00
18%
Port
$145.00 13.3%
$135.00 13.5%
15.7%
$125.00
$115.00
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
228
10
Tenant Monthly Impact of 4.6% Increase
Commercial Tenant Industrial Tenant
Suite within Fishermen's Large container facility (2
Terminal Center Building million sq ft)
(2,260 sq ft) Increase of $1,109 per
Increase of $1.06 per month on a $24,112 bill
month on a $25.66 bill
229
11
Request Adoption of 2022 Rate
Questions?
230
12
COMMISSION
AGENDA MEMORANDUM Item No. 11a
BRIEFING ITEM Date of Meeting September 14, 2021
DATE: September 14, 2021
TO: Stephen P. Metruck, Executive Director
FROM: Alison Beason, Senior Policy Data Analyst, Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
SUBJECT: Equity Index Briefing
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Port of Seattle's Equity Index is an open-source interactive map that displays a visual
representation of social and environmental disparities across King County. Using 21 indicators
within four categories, the Equity Index illustrates the degree to which different communities
experience pollution burden and social inequities. The categories were selected in alignment with
Century Agenda Goals and the indicators within each category were identified by a crossdepartmental
working group.
Across the region there are significant variations in pollution exposure, access to economic
opportunities, and the overall standard of living. The Equity Index was created as a tool for the
Port to understand the variations that exist within the region and use that information to direct
resources towards the areas of greatest need. The Index will be used by staff to equitably guide
funding decisions and broadly inform policy decisions.
BACKGROUND
The Equity Index was created with the initial intent to equitably guide funding decisions for the
South King County Fund, serving as a component of the criteria for applications. Beyond the
South King County Fund, the Index will be used to visualize variations in exposure to pollution,
access to economic opportunity, and health outcomes to direct resources towards the areas of
greatest need. The first Equity Index will be published in September and will be updated annually
to provide the accurate data.
Categories and Indicators
There are four categories of indicators there were selected in alignment with Century Agenda
Goals. The definitions for these categories were created by a cross-departmental working group.
The following are the category definitions and Century Agenda Goals they are aligned to:
231
COMMISSION AGENDA 11a Page 2 of 3
Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
Indicators that demonstrate the opportunity for the creation,
retention, transfer, and accumulation of wealth within a
Definition community for residents, businesses, and community
Economy stakeholders (e.g. poverty rate, median household income,
educational attainment).
Century Agenda Goal #3 Responsibly invest in the economic growth of the
Goal region and all its communities.
Indicators that demonstrate a safe and healthy standard of
Definition living (e.g. housing cost burden, home ownership rate, transit
access).
Livability
Goal #6 Be a highly effective public agency.
Century Agenda
Objective #18 Partner and engage with external stakeholders
Goal
to build healthy, safe, and equitable communities.
Indicators that are not necessary for survival but advance the
standard of living in a community so that people of all abilities
Definition can fully access and participate in public life (e.g. proximity to
Accessibility parks and open space, access to healthy food, pedestrian and
bike facilities).
Century Agenda Goal #5 Become a model for equity, diversity, and inclusion.
Goal
Indicators that represent the health of the environment,
including human-made impacts and bio-physical elements,
Definition
and thus the vitality of the community (e.g. diesel emissions,
Environment
risk of toxic release from facilities, traffic density).
Century Agenda Goal #4 Be the greenest and most energy efficient port in
Goal North America.
The Equity Index consists of 21 indicators within each of these four categories. The indicators
examine variations in pollution, access to economic opportunity, and a healthy standard of living
across King County. The internal working group selected indicators based on an assessment of
data availability from relevant equity tools created by state and regional governments and the
needs of the Port. The following are the 21 indicators.
Economy Livability Accessibility Environment
Poverty rate Life expectancy Proximity to Diesel
Unemployment High school parks and open emissions and
rate graduation rate space NOx emissions
Median Transit access Access to Average annual
household Access to jobs healthy food particulate
income by transit Pedestrian and matter index
Educational Crime index bike facilities (PM2.5 index)
attainment Housing cost Internet access Risk of toxic
Jobs density Home Voter releases from
ownership rate participation facilities index
Traffic density
232
COMMISSION AGENDA 11a Page 3 of 3
Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
For each of the indicators, a literature review was conducted identifying research that connects
the indicator to equity.
Ranking Methodology
The Equity Index displays and ranks individual and combined environmental health and social
indicators. The map shows how a census block group in King County ranks for each indicator for
each of the four categories and for all indicators combined. The individual and combined
indicators are ranked from very low to very high. Communities with the least access to
opportunities and resources are ranked very low (lighter colors on the map), while communities
with the most access to opportunities and resources are ranked very high (darker colors). The
rankings are relative to each other and the comparison is within King County.
The methodology used to score census block groups is directly leveraged from the Washington
State Environmental Healthy Disparities Map and Kirwan Institute, Ohio State University. Each
indicator is ranked very low to very high corresponding to percentiles. Indicators were then
averaged to result in a score for each of four categories (economy, livability, accessibility, and
environment).
Implementation
The Equity Index will be introduced to all Port staff at the September Office of Equity, Diversity,
and Inclusion Town Hall and will be introduced to the King County community through a public
webinar shortly after. Teams at the Port will be trained on how to use the tool. As the Index is
used for projects, case studies will be developed. The Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
will support staff and the community in using the tool by providing a comprehensive user guide
and opportunities to ask questions about the tool.
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS BRIEFING
(1) Presentation slides
PREVIOUS COMMISION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS
None.
233
Item no. 11a_supp
Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
Office of Equity, Diversity & Inclusion
234
1
What
influences
health &
well being?
235
What is an Index?
236
What is an Equity Index
Helps leverage Using Data to
Identifies
Mapping Tool limited Help Advance
Opportunity
resources Equity
237
Starting Points:
Index GIS Shapefile
User Friendly
Audience Analysts Government Community
Data Organization's
Internal External
Vision &
Stakeholders Stakeholders
Mission
2385
The Do's and Don'ts
Do Use
Don't Do Identify Don't
Accurate
Blame YOUR Faults Shame
Data
239
Port's Equity Index?
Aggregated by Census Blocks Groups
4 Equally Weighted Determinant Categories
21 Indicators
Racial Demographic Overlay
All sources were authoritative, accurate and reliable data;
collected by block group or census tract.
Established all calculations and data within ArcGIS First
240
Categories | Century Agenda|Definitions
Accessibility Goal #5 Become a model for equity, diversity, Indicators that are not necessary for survival but advance
and inclusion. the standard of living in a community so that people of all
abilities can fully access and participate in public life (e.g.
proximity to parks and open space, access to healthy
food, pedestrian and bike facilities).
Economy Goal #3 Responsibly invest in the economic Indicators that demonstrate the opportunity for the
growth of the region and all its communities. creation, retention, transfer, and accumulation of wealth
within a community for residents, businesses, and
community stakeholders (e.g. poverty rate, median
household income, educational attainment).
Environment Goal #4 Be the greenest and most energy Indicators that represent the health of the environment,
efficient port in North America. including human-made impacts and bio-physical
elements, and thus the vitality of the community (e.g.
diesel emissions, risk of toxic release from facilities, traffic
density).
Livability Goal #6 Be a highly effective public agency. Indicators that demonstrate a safe and healthy standard
Objective #18 Partner and engage with of living (e.g. housing cost burden, home ownership rate,
transit access).
external stakeholders to build healthy, safe,
and equitable communities.
241
Methodology
Accessibility Livability
Proximity to Parks and Housing Cost Burden
Open Space Transit Access
Access to Jobs by Transit
Access to Healthy
Social Crime Index
Food Life Expectancy
Pedestrian and Bike High School Graduation
Facilities Rate
Internet Access Determinants
Voter Participation
Environmental Economy
Diesel Emissions and NOx Emissions Poverty Rate
Average Annual PM 2.5 Unemployment Rate
Risk of Toxic Releases from Facilities Median Household Income
Traffic density Educational Attainment
Job Density
242
Distribution of Data
Moderate
Opportunity
Low Opportunity High Opportunity
Very Low Opportunity Very High
Opportunity
- 1.0 - 0.5 MEAN 0.5 1
243
Port Equity Index
244
Port Equity Index
245
Des Moines (Placeholder)
Heavy 0% 71% Heavy
Traffic Traffic
Food 0% 21% Food
Desert Desert
No High 9% 23% No High
School School
Diploma Diploma
48% White Non Hispanic 2 8% White Non Hispanic 246
Online Tool
247
+] Estimated Jobs Total
|v]
Construction 7,113| "li
Fire 1,672 J Jl
Manufacturing 14 k[EER ili
Retail 5,582[J 1
Services 19k[NGG"|i
Wholesale, Trade, Utilities 18kI|
Government 2,850 Jl
Education 2,588 [ll
Sources: US Census Bureau, Amencan Community Survey (ACS) 5-year dataset, 2015-
2018. PSRC - 2018 Covered Employment Estimates.
248
City of Kent
249
Next Steps
Internal External
Case Studies Story Maps
Presentation Presentation
250
Questions?
Alison Beason
Beason.A@PortSeattle.org
Thank You
RETURN TO AGENDA
251
COMMISSION
AGENDA MEMORANDUM Item No. 11b
BRIEFING ITEM Date of Meeting September 14, 2021
DATE: September 14, 2021
TO: Stephen P. Metruck, Executive Director
FROM: Bookda Gheisar, Senior Director, Equity, Diversity & Inclusion
Delmas Whittaker, Director, Marine Maintenance
SUBJECT: Port Policing Assessment Final Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In response to the Port of Seattle Commission's Motion 2020-15 creating a Task Force on Port
Policing and Civil Rights, staff have been actively working to implement a comprehensive
assessment of the Port of Seattle Police Department's (POSPD) policies, protocols and procedures
impacting issues of diversity, equity and civil rights. With the help of a wide range of external
stakeholders and a consulting team, Port staff have achieved the Commission's goal of
identifying opportunities for the POSPD to meet the highest nationwide standards achievable for
public safety and protection of civil rights, equity, accountability and oversight.
The briefing on September 14 will provide a summary of key findings and recommendations for
potential Commission or Executive action, as well as a proposed plan for implementation over
the coming year.
BACKGROUND
Upon the passage of Motion 2020-15, the Task Force on Port Policing and Civil Rights hired 21CP
Solutions (21CP) as its consultant and formed a Task Force composed of key internal and external
stakeholders to guide the process and provide input on key issues. In addition, the structure of
the policing assessment was divided into subcommittees that include both Task Force members
and other Port and external participants.
In addition to supporting the work of the subcommittees and integrating their feedback into the
assessment, 21CP also interviewed stakeholders, reviewed documents, surveyed POSPD
employees and drawn on their expertise to develop their recommendations. The results of this
work are found in 21CP's report which is included in the public materials for the September 14
Commission meeting.
Motion 2020-15 states that the Executive Director and Commission will "review the report within
90 days of receipt" and will "respond to the recommendations within six (6) months". The Task
Force Co-chairs and staff will work with Commissioners, the Executive Director and the POSPD
during this period to facilitate this review and response, as well as any subsequent
implementation.
Template revised September 22, 2016. 252
COMMISSION AGENDA Briefing Item No. 11b Page 2 of 3
Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The 21CP final report and the summary of the final report both of which provided as
attachments to this memo highlight two main conclusions:
1) First, the Port of Seattle Police Department is in a strong position and already operating
to a great extent in alignment with the Commission's goals as articulated in Motion 2020-
15. POSPD has good policies and procedures, a robust training program and a clear
commitment to mission and goals. Use of force is infrequent and, with few exceptions,
reasonable, necessary, and proportional. The relatively few POSPD misconduct
complaints were investigated in a timely and objective manner. Forward thinking appears
typical of POSPD leadership and was observed in supervisors and officers providing dayto-day
policing services, the POSPD training program, and through participation in the
work of the Task Force.
2) Second, as with any organization, there are opportunities for growth and change that will
bring POSPD even closer to the Commission's vision of a world-class police force that not
only sets a high standard for performance and community service, but also centers equity
and civil liberties as core values in its work. To that end, 21CP's full report offers a wide
variety of recommendations in each of the nine areas for assessment outlined by the
Commission.
In particular, 21CP's recommendations focus on three priority areas:
How increased organizational transparency can improve perceptions about the
POSPD;
Supporting the POSPD's move away from a traditional police response on
homelessness; and
The need for the POSPD to focus on internal procedural justice to address a
perception of inequity experienced by many, but particularly Non-White employees.
Overall, 21CP offers a full list of more than 50 recommendations based on the work of the
subcommittees as well as its engagement efforts with the POSPD, other Port staff, and external
stakeholders. Those recommendations are listed in the summary report document, and are
further explained in the full report document.
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS PRESENTATION -
(1) 21CP Final Policing Assessment Report Summary
(2) 21CP Final Policing Assessment Report
(3) Presentation slides
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS
April 27, 2021 The Commission heard a progress report from the Task Force co-chairs.
November 17, 2020 The Commission heard a progress report from the Task Force co-
chairs.
Template revised September 22, 2016. 253
COMMISSION AGENDA Briefing Item No. 11b Page 3 of 3
Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
July 14, 2020 The Commission approved the Port Policing Assessment Motion.
June 30, 2020 The Commission held a study session on the draft Port Policing
Assessment Motion.
Template revised September 22, 2016. 254
Agenda Item No. 11b, Attach 1
Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
Executive Summary
of the Recommendations for the Port of Seattle
Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions September 2021255
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Early in their support of the Port of Seattle Commission (Commission) Task Force on
Policing and Civil Rights (Task Force), 21CP Solution consultants (21CP) went for a
ride-along with two Port of Seattle Police Department (POSPD) sergeants to gain
perspective on the Port's geographical layout and to learn more about POSPD officers'
daily work. At one of the POSPD outstations, an officer commented, "I am glad you
are here. This is a great department and I think you will see that. I hope you don't
find anything broken; but I do hope you find things to fix."
Unlike many of 21CP's engagements, this assessment of the POSPD was not
precipitated by any seminal event or community outrage directly involving POSPD.
In fact, 21CP found that few outside the Port have much awareness of the POSPD,
what they do, or how they differ from the many other law enforcement agencies
including the U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA), US Customs and
Border Protection (CBP), Washington State Patrol (WSP), the Seattle Police
Department (SPD) and others that operate within and/or proximate to the Port's
jurisdiction. Instead, this review was inspired by the national moment of reflection
about policing, and the Commission's vision of a world-class police force that not only
sets a high standard for performance and community service, but also centers equity
and civil liberties as core values in its work.
After a thorough process that involved document review, listening sessions and
interviews with many internal and external stakeholders, engagement with the Task
Force and subcommittees, an internal POSPD climate study, engagement at training,
and review of use of force incidents and misconduct complaint investigations, 21CP
found ample evidence of a good department that can get even better with key changes.
On the positive side, POSPD regularly updates its policies and procedures to stay
current with promising practices, supports a robust training program, and has a clear
commitment to mission and goals. Use of force is infrequent and, with few exceptions,
reasonable, necessary, and proportional. The relatively few POSPD misconduct
complaints were investigated in a timely and objective manner. Forward thinking
appears typical of POSPD leadership and was observed in supervisors and officers
providing day-to-day policing services, the POSPD training program, and through
participation in the work of the Task Force. Notably, the POSPD has taken on a
regional leadership role in crafting new policies and procedures in response to recent
1
256
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Washington State legislation to ensure that agencies are operating from the same set
of standards.
However, as with any organization, there is room for improvement. As such, this
report aims to provide specific guidance, and practical recommendations, for POSPD
and the Port based on its unique needs, values, and experiences, and drawing from
the vast experience of the many volunteers that donated their time and energy to
think through the questions posed to the Task Force. Overall, this report offers 52
discrete recommendations covering each of the nine areas of assessment outlined by
the Commission; a majority of the recommendations capture feedback specifically
provided by the members of the Task Force and subcommittees.
While this report provides many recommendations, some broad and some more
discrete, three priority areas stood out in our analysis:
1) the need for the POSPD to focus on internal procedural justice to address a
perception of inequity experienced by many, but particularly Non-White
employees,
2) how increased organizational transparency can improve perceptions about the
POSPD, and
3) supporting the POSPD's move away from a traditional police response on
homelessness.
The first two priority areas internal procedural justice and transparency were
highlighted during the subcommittee process and by the results of the climate survey
and officer interviews, in which 21CP heard frequent concerns, most often expressed
by employees of color, about fairness in departmental opportunities, even though
most did not specifically attribute the perceived unfairness to race, ethnicity, or
gender. In all, over 25% of 21CP's recommendations focus on increasing internal
procedural justice and fairness1. The third police response to homelessness is the
single most important step that will help reduce external disparities around uses of
force.
1 See Recommendations 2, 7, 34 44, 49.
2
257
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
The Port is not alone in confronting significant issues and concerns surrounding the
role, actions, and performance of police in its community. 21CP has conducted similar
reviews for other jurisdictions addressing many of the same issues and challenges,
and in some cases offered similar recommendations to what is outlined here based on
the same types of best and emerging, promising practices. Again, however, this set of
recommendations was strongly shaped by the input of the Task Force and the
subcommittees, as well as the unique nature of the POSPD, feedback from community
members and direction from the Port Commission.
Finally, while this executive summary focuses specifically on the list of
recommendations, the full report contains important details, key nuances and
additional background on the process and participants that resulted in these
conclusions. For example, the internal POSPD climate study and the follow-on
interviews with individual officers provided essential insights into not only
perceptions of fairness but also the potential reasons behind those perceptions;
anonymous quotes from the interviews are included in that section to help with
context and interpretation of the survey results. Similarly, there are a number of
issues raised in the Commission Motion that 21CP reviewed, but that did not result
in specific recommendations such as use of military-grade equipment or how
"qualified immunity" does or doesn't play a role in POSPD discipline and
accountability processes. For those that do not have time to read the full report, it
also may be worthwhile to at least review the part of the report that shares
descriptions of each of the recommendations, which provide both explanation for how
the conclusions were arrived at as well as specific details related to implementation.
3
258
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
II. TABLE OF RECOMMENDATIONS
General Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION NO. 1. POSPD SHOULD CONTINUE TO SCRUTINIZE
THE INTENT AND LANGUAGE OF EVERY LEXIPOL POLICY AND MODIFY
THE POLICIES TO ENSURE THAT THEY MEET BEST PRACTICES AND NOT
JUST LEGAL MINIMUMS.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 2. AS THE POSPD GATHERS MORE DATA ON
OFFICER ACTIVITY, THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD CONTINUE TO
SCRUTINIZE THAT DATA FOR ANY DISPARITIES IN USE OF FORCE AND
WORK TO ENSURE THAT POSPD'S DEPLOYMENT STRATEGIES AND
APPROACH TO POLICING MINIMIZE THOSE DISPARITIES.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 3. THE PORT SHOULD CONSIDER CREATING A
QUARTERLY PORT SAFETY COMMITTEE TO BRING INTERESTED
STAKEHOLDERS TOGETHER.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 4. THE PORT SHOULD CONDUCT A STUDY OF
THE INTERNAL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND COMMUNICATIONS
INVOLVING THE POSPD TO DETERMINE HOW TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE
GOAL OF ENHANCING POSPD TRANSPARENCY THROUGH REGULAR
ENGAGEMENT WITH PORT LEADERSHIP.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 5. CUSTOMER SERVICES AND THE POSPD
SHOULD DEVELOP OR REFINE PROTOCOLS ON THE HANDLING OF
COMPLAINTS AND COMPLIMENTS ABOUT PORT POLICE OFFICERS.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 6. PORT LEADERSHIP SHOULD SUPPORT THE
POSPD BY DEVELOPING FIRST RESPONDER ALTERNATIVES TO INCIDENTS
INVOLVING THE HOMELESS THAT DO NOT INVOLVE ARMED POSPD
OFFICERS AND INCREASE ACCESS TO HOLISTIC RESOURCES.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 7. THE POSPD SHOULD COMMENCE A
CAMPAIGN OF INTERNAL PROCEDURAL JUSTICE TRAINING FOR ALL
4
259
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
LEVELS OF THE DEPARTMENT TO HELP ADDRESS THE BROAD-BASED
SENSE OF INEQUITY, ESPECIALLY WITH EMPLOYEES OF COLOR.
Use of Force Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION NO. 8. THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD CONSIDER
RESTRUCTURING THE USE OF FORCE POLICIES INTO A UNIFIED POLICY.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 9. THE MISSION AND VISION STATEMENTS IN
THE POLICY MANUAL SHOULD MORE CLEARLY INDICATE THE
DEPARTMENT'S COMMITMENT, IN ALL OF ITS ACTIVITIES, TO VALUING
AND UPHOLDING EQUITY AND FAIRNESS, DE-ESCALATION, THE SANCTITY
OF HUMAN LIFE, AND ACHIEVING THE BEST POSSIBLE OUTCOME FOR ALL
INVOLVED.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10. THE DE-ESCALATION POLICY SHOULD BE
UPDATED TO MAKE DE-ESCALATION ATTEMPTS MANDATORY, WHEN
POSSIBLE TO DO SO, AND TO ADD DE-ESCALATION TACTICS.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11. THE USE OF FORCE POLICY SHOULD
EXPRESSLY REQUIRE THAT ANY USE OF FORCE BE OBJECTIVELY
REASONABLE, NECESSARY, AND PROPORTIONAL.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 12. THE USE OF FORCE POLICY SHOULD
REQUIRE OFFICERS TO PROVIDE A WARNING, WHEN SAFE AND FEASIBLE,
BEFORE USING ANY FORCE.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 13. THE USE OF FORCE POLICY SHOULD
REQUIRE OFFICERS TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
THEIR TRAINING AND IMMEDIATELY SUMMON MEDICAL AID TO THE
SCENE.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 14. POLICY SHOULD BE REVISED TO REQUIRE
OFFICERS TO REPORT AND DOCUMENT ALL FORCE THEY USE AND/OR
WITNESS.
5
260
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
RECOMMENDATION NO. 15. THE USE OF FORCE REPORTING POLICY
SHOULD REQUIRE THAT A SUPERVISOR RESPOND TO ALL APPLICATIONS
OF REPORTABLE FORCE, NOT JUST THOSE THAT RESULT IN "VISIBLE
INJURY."
RECOMMENDATION NO. 16. THE POSPD SHOULD CONSIDER HAVING
OFFICERS ENTER USE OF FORCE REPORTS DIRECTLY INTO BLUETEAM,
RATHER THAN HAVING A SUPERVISOR GATHER AND PRESENT FACTS. THE
SUPERVISOR'S INVESTIGATION AND ALL SUPPORTING MATERIALS
SHOULD BE CONSOLIDATED IN BLUETEAM AND ROUTED TO THE CHAIN
OF COMMAND THROUGH THE SYSTEM.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 17. THE POSPD SHOULD MAXIMIZE ITS
TRANSPARENCY BY PUBLISHING DATA AND REPORTS ON ITS WEBSITE
AND REGULARLY REPORTING THE INFORMATION TO THE COMMISSION.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 18. VIDEO EVIDENCE SHOULD BE DOWNLOADED
AND INCLUDED IN BLUETEAM OR LINKED WITHIN THE SYSTEM.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 19. POSPD SHOULD CREATE A STANDING USE OF
FORCE REVIEW COMMITTEE, TO INCLUDE A TRAINING OFFICER, THE IA
OFFICER, AND COMMAND STAFF, EXCLUSIVE OF THE CHIEF, AND TASKED
WITH REVIEWING EVERY USE OF FORCE.
Mutual Aid Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION NO. 20. THE POSPD SHOULD CONTINUE TO TAKE THE
LEAD ON UPDATING CURRENT MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS TO DRIVE BEST
PRACTICES REGIONALLY AND ALIGN WITH THE NEW STATE POLICING
LAWS.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 21. AFTER ENGAGING IN MUTUAL AID
DEPLOYMENTS, AT THE PORT OR IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS, POSPD
SHOULD ACTIVELY ENGAGE IN AFTER-ACTION ASSESSMENTS AND TRACK
ALL RESULTING RECOMMENDATIONS.
6
261
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
RECOMMENDATION NO. 22. THE POSPD SHOULD DEVELOP ITS OWN
CROWD MANAGEMENT POLICY OUTLINING THE POSPD TERMS OF
ENGAGEMENT, FACILITATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT ACTIVITIES, AND
WHICH SPECIFICALLY SETS FORTH THE POSPD ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY
WITH DEMONSTRATION LEADERSHIP.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 23. THE PORT SHOULD ADD SPECIFIC APPROVAL
CRITERIA AND PROCESSES REQUIRED BEFORE DEPLOYING RESOURCES
FOR MUTUAL AID.
Oversight, Accountability, Equity and Civil Rights Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION NO. 24. POSPD SHOULD ADOPT THE PORT OF
SEATTLE CODE OF CONDUCT INTO POLICY.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 25. POSPD POLICY SHOULD MAKE EXPLICIT THE
TYPES OF COMPLAINTS THAT SHOULD BE PURSUED INTERNALLY VERSES
THOSE THAT SHOULD BE HANDLED THROUGH PORT OF SEATTLE HUMAN
RESOURCES, WORKPLACE RESPONSIBILITY, OR OTHER AVENUES OF
COMPLAINT, WITH EXPLICIT PROTOCOLS BETWEEN COMPONENTS
DEVELOPED, INCLUDING TIMELINES FOR COMPLETING INVESTIGATIONS
OF EMPLOYEE COMPLAINTS.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 26. THE COMPLAINT CLASSIFICATION SCHEME
(INQUIRY AND MINOR, MODERATE. OR MAJOR COMPLAINT) SHOULD BE
REVISED AS IT IS UNNECESSARILY TECHNICAL, THE TERMS USED ARE
NOT CONSISTENTLY WELL DEFINED, AND USE OF A METHODOLOGY TO
ASSIST IN COMPLAINT CLASSIFICATION WILL PROMOTE OBJECTIVITY
AND CONSISTENCY.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 27. WHEN AN ON-DUTY SUPERVISOR HANDLES
COMPLAINT INTAKE AND THE INVESTIGATION OF AN INQUIRY OR MINOR
COMPLAINT, THEIR INVESTIGATION MEMO SHOULD INDICATE THE
RATIONALE BEHIND THE CLASSIFICATION DECISION, THE COMPLAINT
CLASSIFICATION SHOULD BE EXPLICITLY APPROVED BY THE
COMMANDER, AND COMPLAINT CLASSIFICATION DECISIONS SHOULD BE
7
262
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
REGULARLY AUDITED TO CHECK FOR CONSISTENCY IN APPLICATION OF
POLICY AND OTHER CLASSIFICATION GUIDANCE.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 28. THOUGH THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF
MISSED TIMELINES FOR COMPLETING INVESTIGATIONS, BEST PRACTICE
WOULD BE TO SET TIMELINES FOR EACH STEP IN THE PROCESS, FROM
COMPLAINT INTAKE THROUGH A FINAL DISPOSITION, INCLUDING NOTICE
TO THE NAMED OFFICER AND COMPLAINANT, AND THE TIMELINES
SHOULD BE REFLECTED IN AN UPDATED COMPLAINT INTAKE
FLOWCHART, AND POLICY SHOULD BE CLARIFIED AS TO ACCEPTABLE
REASONS FOR EXTENDING TIMELINES, IDENTIFY WHO HAS AUTHORITY
TO GRANT AN EXTENSION, AND NOTE ANY LIMITS ON THE LENGTH OF AN
EXTENSION.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 29. THE POSPD SHOULD DEVELOP POLICY THAT
IDENTIFIES POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND PROTOCOLS TO
ADDRESS ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED CONFLICTS RELATED TO MISCONDUCT
COMPLAINT HANDLING AND DISCIPLINE MATTERS.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 30. THE PORT SHOULD EXPLORE ALTERNATIVE
DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) OPTIONS FOR RESOLVING SOME
COMPLAINTS, WHETHER OR NOT THEY INVOLVE THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT, AS ADR DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE AN OPTION FOR CASE
PROCESSING IN THE POSPD, HUMAN RESOURCES, OR WORKPLACE
RESPONSIBILITY.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 31. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF WAYS TO MAKE
THE POSPD AND COMPLAINT FILING SYSTEM MORE ACCESSIBLE TO
STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING MODIFYING THE COMPLAINT FORM,
CHANGING THE ON-LINE SEARCH SYSTEM, AND IDENTIFYING POLICE
FACILITIES ON SEA-TAC AIRPORT MAPS.
Diversity in Recruitment and Hiring Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION NO. 32. THE PORT SHOULD COORDINATE WITH THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT, HUMAN RESOURCES, AND OTHER PORT
COMPONENTS TO CONSOLIDATE DATA SOURCES WITH THE GOAL OF
8
263
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
DEVELOPING A ROBUST DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYTIC APPROACH TO
BETTER UNDERSTAND THE RECRUITMENT AND HIRING OF POLICE
DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL, INCLUDING AT WHICH STAGE WOMEN AND/OR
APPLICANTS OF DIVERSE ETHNIC AND RACIAL BACKGROUNDS HAVE
HIGH FAIL RATES, AND IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 33. THE PORT SHOULD DEVELOP CLEAR
GUIDANCE ON THE BENCHMARKS TO BE USED IN ASSESSING THE
AVAILABILITY AND UTILIZATION OF PERSONS IDENTIFYING WITH
DIFFERENT ETHNIC AND RACIAL GROUPS, INCLUDING THE RATIONALE
FOR USING CENSUS DATA FROM SPECIFIC AREAS.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 34. THE PORT SHOULD EXPLORE THE
REASONING BEHIND THE SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE (20-25%) OF
EMPLOYEES WHO DO NOT REPORT THEIR RACE/ETHNICITY AND
CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF THIS MISSING DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
ON EMPLOYEE DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ANALYSIS FOR IDENTIFYING AND
ADDRESSING ANY DISPARITIES IN HIRING AND OTHER EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITIES.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 35. THE PORT AND POLICE DEPARTMENT
SHOULD CONSIDER USING NON-BINARY GENDER DESIGNATIONS.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 36. DEVELOP A RECRUITMENT PLAN AIMED AT
INCREASING THE NUMBER OF HISPANIC/LATINO INDIVIDUALS APPLYING
TO BE A POLICE OFFICER AT THE POSPD.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 37. CONSIDER A VARIETY OF RECRUITMENT
SUGGESTIONS MADE BY THE DIVERSITY IN RECRUITMENT AND HIRING
SUBCOMMITTEE TO GATHER INFORMATION AND TO REACH OUT TO
YOUTH AND OTHER COMMUNITIES TO GARNER INTEREST IN POLICING
AND IN THE POSPD.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 38. FOLLOW-UP WITH PUBLIC SAFETY TESTING
TO EXPLORE WHY FEMALE APPLICANTS TO THE PORT OF SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT FAIL THE WRITTEN TEST AT A HIGHER LEVEL THAN MALE
APPLICANTS AND WHETHER THE PORT IS RECEIVING ALL DATA
9
264
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
ANALYTICS NEEDED TO ASSESS APPLICANT AND HIRING PATTERNS AND
GIVE FOLLOW-UP CONSIDERATION AS TO WHY THERE HAVE BEEN NO
FEMALE ENTRY-LEVEL HIRES IN THE PAST THREE YEARS.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 39. INCREASE THE NUMBER OF CIVILIANS,
PULLING FROM DIVERSE EMPLOYEE GROUPS SUCH AS EMPLOYEE
RESOURCE GROUPS (ERGS), TO BE TRAINED AND AVAILABLE TO SERVE ON
ORAL BOARDS, SO THAT THEY CAN ROTATE IN WHEN AVAILABLE TO
ASSIST WITH THIS STEP OF THE HIRING PROCESS AND CONSIDER WAYS
TO ASSESS WHETHER THE TRAINING PROVIDED TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT
OF IMPLICIT BIAS HAS POSITIVE IMPACTS.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 40. REVIEW ORAL BOARD QUESTIONS TO
DETERMINE IF THEY ARE ELICITING RESPONSES THAT ADDRESS THE
SUBJECT AREA BEHIND EACH QUESTION, SUCH AS ASSESSING
CHARACTER, AND CONSIDER WHETHER THE ORAL BOARD SHOULD
INCLUDE QUESTIONS DIRECTLY ASKING APPLICANTS ABOUT
INVOLVEMENT IN EXTREMIST GROUPS, ABOUT AN ENCOUNTER WITH
SOMEONE OF A DIFFERENT RACE, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, ETC., WHETHER
THEY HAVE EVER BEEN THE SUBJECT OF DISCRIMINATION THEMSELVES,
OR THE COMMUNITY GROUPS THEY BELONG TO.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 41. CONSIDER WHETHER SOME LIMITED
FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS BY ORAL BOARD MEMBERS SHOULD BE
PERMITTED.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 42. BRING REPRESENTATIVES OF ALL ERGS INTO
THE RECRUITMENT AND HIRING PROCESS AT ALL STEPS, NOT JUST FOR
ORAL BOARDS, SO THAT A VARIETY OF PERSPECTIVES AND IDEAS ARE
SHARED WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE PORT THROUGHOUT
THE PROCESS.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 43. WHILE POINTS CAN BE ADDED TO AN
APPLICANT'S SCORE IF THEY SPEAK A SECOND LANGUAGE, CONSIDER A
PAY INCENTIVE OR HIRING PREFERENCE FOR THE ABILITY TO SPEAK
MORE THAN ONE LANGUAGE, ENCOURAGING MULTILINGUALISM FOR
APPLICANTS AND CURRENT EMPLOYEES.
10
265
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Training and Development Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION NO. 44. THE POSPD SHOULD CONSIDER RANKING
APPLICANTS FOR SPECIAL TEAM ASSIGNMENTS TO INCREASE
TRANSPARENCY IN THOSE PROCESSES.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 45. THE POSPD SHOULD CONTINUE TO TRAIN DEESCALATION
AS A CORE ENGAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 46. THE POSPD SHOULD CONTINUE TO STRESS A
"GUARDIAN MENTALITY" IN ITS TRAININGS.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 47. THE POSPD SHOULD PROVIDE POSITIVE
EXAMPLES TO REINFORCE GOOD POLICE TACTICS RATHER THAN
STRESSING POOR OUTCOMES IN TRAINING.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 48. THE POSPD SHOULD CONTINUE TO UTILIZE
NATIONAL AND LOCAL LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES,
BUT WITH TRANSPARENT SELECTION CRITERIA.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 49. THE POSPD SHOULD CONSIDER
INCORPORATING EXISTING COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
AS PART OF TRAINING TO BETTER UNDERSTAND CULTURAL
DIFFERENCES.
Advocacy Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION NO. 50. POSPD SHOULD CONTINUE TO INCORPORATE
THE NEW LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS INTO POLICY AND REINFORCE
THOSE CHANGES THROUGH TRAINING.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 51. THE PORT SHOULD CONTINUE TO ENGAGE
WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS ON EMERGING
STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION.
11
266
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Budget, Roles, and Equipment Recommendation
RECOMMENDATION NO. 52. AS BODY WORN CAMERA PROGRAM IS
DEVELOPED, THE POSPD SHOULD CONSIDER POLICY CHOICES AROUND
WHEN CAMERAS SHOULD BE ACTIVATED, WHAT ARE ACCEPTABLE USES
FOR BWC FOOTAGE, WHEN OFFICERS MAY VIEW FOOTAGE, AND HOW THE
BWC PROGRAM CAN SUPPORT OVERALL TRANSPARENCY.
12
267
Brian Maxey
Kathryn Olson
Project Leads
Matthew Barge
Ganesha Martin
Kathleen O'Toole
Charles H. Ramsey
Sean Smoot
Project Team
21CP Solutions268
Agenda Item No. 11b, Attach 2
Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle
Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions September 2021269
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................1
II. SCOPE & APPROACH ......................................................................................3
A. Scope of the Assessment ............................................................................................. 3
B. Approach to this Assessment .................................................................................... 4
III. ABOUT THE POSPD .........................................................................................6
A. Organizational Chart .................................................................................................. 6
B. Jurisdictional Map ...................................................................................................... 7
C. Officer Activities .......................................................................................................... 8
D. Demographics of Department ................................................................................... 8
E. CALEA Accreditation .................................................................................................. 9
F. LEXIPOL ...................................................................................................................... 10
G. POSPD Transparency and Critical Self-Analysis .............................................. 12
Annual Biased Policing Reviews ..................................................................................................... 12
Annual Use of Force Reviews .......................................................................................................... 12
Communication with Port Community .......................................................................................... 13
IV. ENGAGEMENT ................................................................................................ 16
A. External Stakeholders .............................................................................................. 16
B. External Stakeholders Identified through the Port of Seattle Customer
Service Bureau ................................................................................................................... 18
C. External and Internal Stakeholders Working on Issues of Homelessness ... 22
D. Internal Stakeholder Engagement and Equity .................................................. 24
POSPD Engagement ....................................................................................................................... 24
E. Climate Survey ........................................................................................................... 29
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 29
Demographic Information for Survey Respondents ...................................................................... 30
Respect for Individual Differences .................................................................................................. 31
Accountability .................................................................................................................................. 35
Supervision ...................................................................................................................................... 38
Work Climate ................................................................................................................................... 39
V. USE OF FORCE ............................................................................................... 41
A. Motion 2020-15 and the Use of Force Subcommittee ......................................... 41
B. Use of Force Subcommittee Members and Workflow ....................................... 42
C. Use of Force Case Review Methodology ............................................................... 43
Use of Force Case Review Findings ................................................................................................ 45
D. Use of Force Recommendations ............................................................................. 49
i
270
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
VI. MUTUAL AID ................................................................................................... 66
A. Motion 2020-15 and the Mutual Aid Subcommittee ........................................... 68
B. Subcommittee Workflow .......................................................................................... 69
C. Mutual Aid Recommendations ............................................................................... 70
VII.OVERSIGHT, ACCOUNTABILITY, RACIAL EQUITY & CIVIL RIGHTS73
A. Motion 2020-15 and Oversight, Accountability, Racial Equity & Civil Rights
........................................................................................................................................ 73
B. Oversight, Accountability, Racial Equity & Civil Rights Subcommittee
Members and Workflow .................................................................................................... 74
C. Oversight and Accountability Generally and at the Port of Seattle Police
Department ......................................................................................................................... 75
Misconduct Complaint Handling Process at POSPD .................................................................... 76
POS Police Code of Conduct Individual Complaints Workplace Responsibility .......................... 82
D. Oversight, Accountability, Equity and Civil Rights Subcommittee
Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 83
Relationship between POSPD Standards of Conduct and the Port's Code of Conduct, including
Avenues of Complaint ..................................................................................................................... 83
Complaint Intake and Classification .............................................................................................. 85
Timelines .......................................................................................................................................... 88
Conflicts of Interest ......................................................................................................................... 89
Alternative Dispute Resolution ...................................................................................................... 90
Access to the Police Department and Information on Filing Complaints .................................... 90
VIII. DIVERSITY IN HIRING AND RECRUITING............................................ 91
A. Motion 2020-15 and the Diversity in Recruitment and Hiring Subcommittee
........................................................................................................................................ 91
B. Diversity in Recruitment and Hiring Subcommittee Members and
Workflow .............................................................................................................................. 91
Overview of Recruitment and Hiring of Police Officers Generally and at the Port of Seattle
Police Department ........................................................................................................................... 92
POSPD Employee Demographics ................................................................................................... 95
Demographics for POSPD Hired 2018 2020 ................................................................................ 98
C. Diversity in Recruitment and Hiring Recommendations ................................ 99
Recommendations relating to Data Collection, Demographics and Self-Identification .............. 99
Advertising and Recruitment ........................................................................................................ 102
Recommendations Related to Advertising and Recruitment ...................................................... 103
Female Entry-Level and Lateral Applicants ............................................................................... 105
Oral Boards .................................................................................................................................... 105
Recommendations Related to Oral Boards .................................................................................. 106
Equity Issues ................................................................................................................................. 107
ii
271
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
IX. TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT.............................................................. 108
A. Motion 2020-15 and the Diversity in Recruitment and Hiring Subcommittee
...................................................................................................................................... 108
B. Training and Development Subcommittee Members and Workflow .......... 108
Training .......................................................................................................................................... 109
Development .................................................................................................................................. 112
Engagement with Communities of Color ..................................................................................... 113
C. Training and Development Subcommittee Recommendations .................... 114
X. ADVOCACY..................................................................................................... 118
XI. BUDGET, ROLES, AND EQUIPMENT ....................................................... 123
A. Motion 2020-15 and Budget, Roles, and Equipment. ....................................... 123
B. Reducing the Police Role in Responding to Homelessness and Persons in
Crisis ................................................................................................................................... 123
C. Military Style Equipment ...................................................................................... 124
D. Body Cameras ........................................................................................................... 125
Table of Recommendations..................................................................................... i
iii
272
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
I. INTRODUCTION
Early in their support of the Port of Seattle Commission (Commission) Task Force on
Policing and Civil Rights (Task Force), 21CP Solution consultants (21CP) went for a
ride-along with two Port of Seattle Police Department (POSPD) sergeants to gain
perspective on the Port's geographical layout and to learn more about POSPD officers'
daily work. At one of the POSPD outstations, an officer commented, "I am glad you
are here. This is a great department and I think you will see that. I hope you don't
find anything broken; but I do hope you find things to fix."
Unlike many of 21CP's engagements, this assessment of the POSPD was not
precipitated by any seminal event or community outrage directly involving POSPD.
In fact, 21CP found that few outside the Port have much awareness of the POSPD,
what they do, or how they differ from the many other law enforcement agencies
including the U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA), US Customs and
Border Protection (CBP), Washington State Patrol (WSP), the Seattle Police
Department (SPD) and others that operate within and/or proximate to the Port's
jurisdiction. Instead, this review was inspired by the national moment of reflection
about policing, and the Commission's vision of a world-class police force that not only
sets a high standard for performance and community service, but also centers equity
and civil liberties as core values in its work.
After a thorough process that involved document review, listening sessions and
interviews with many internal and external stakeholders, engagement with the Task
Force and subcommittees, an internal POSPD climate study, engagement at training,
and review of use of force incidents and misconduct complaint investigations, 21CP
found ample evidence of a good department that can get even better with key changes.
On the positive side, POSPD regularly updates its policies and procedures to stay
current with promising practices, supports a robust training program, and has a clear
commitment to mission and goals. Use of force is infrequent and, with few exceptions,
reasonable, necessary, and proportional. The relatively few POSPD misconduct
complaints were investigated in a timely and objective manner. Forward thinking
appears typical of POSPD leadership and was observed in supervisors and officers
providing day-to-day policing services, the POSPD training program, and through
participation in the work of the Task Force. Notably, the POSPD has taken on a
regional leadership role in crafting new policies and procedures in response to recent
Washington State legislation to ensure that agencies are operating from the same set
of standards.
1 273
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
However, as with any organization, there is room for improvement. As such, this
report aims to provide specific guidance, and practical recommendations, for POSPD
and the Port based on its unique needs, values, and experiences, and drawing from
the vast experience of the many volunteers that donated their time and energy to
think through the questions posed to the Task Force. Overall, this report offers 52
discrete recommendations covering each of the nine areas of assessment outlined by
the Commission; a majority of the recommendations capture feedback specifically
provided by the members of the Task Force and subcommittees.
While this report provides many recommendations, some broad and some more
discrete, three priority areas stood out in our analysis:
1) the need for the POSPD to focus on internal procedural justice to address a
perception of inequity experienced by many, but particularly Non-White
employees,
2) how increased organizational transparency can improve perceptions about the
POSPD, and
3) supporting the POSPD's move away from a traditional police response on
homelessness.
The first two priority areas internal procedural justice and transparency were
highlighted during the subcommittee process and by the results of the climate survey
and officer interviews, in which 21CP heard frequent concerns, most often expressed
by employees of color, about fairness in departmental opportunities, even though
most did not specifically attribute the perceived unfairness to race, ethnicity, or
gender. In all, over 25% of 21CP's recommendations focus on increasing internal
procedural justice and fairness1. The third police response to homelessness is the
single most important step that will help reduce external disparities around uses of
force.
The Port is not alone in confronting significant issues and concerns surrounding the
role, actions, and performance of police in its community. 21CP has conducted similar
reviews for other jurisdictions addressing many of the same issues and challenges,
and in some cases offered similar recommendations to what is outlined here based on
1 See Recommendations 2, 7, 34 44, 49.
2 274
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
the same types of best and emerging, promising practices. Again, however, this set of
recommendations was strongly shaped by the input of the Task Force and the
subcommittees, as well as the unique nature of the POSPD, feedback from community
members and direction from the Port Commission.
II. SCOPE & APPROACH
A. Scope of the Assessment
The Port of Seattle ("the Port") engaged 21CP Solutions ("21CP") to assess the Port
of Seattle Police Department's ("POSPD" or "the Department") current "policies,
practices and oversight" to ensure alignment with the Port's Century Agenda goal to
"Become a Model for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion." This engagement was framed
by the July 14, 2020, Port Commission ("the Commission") Motion to conduct a
comprehensive assessment of the POSPD's policies, protocols and procedures
impacting issues of diversity, equity, and civil rights (Motion 2020-15).
In Motion 2020-15, the Commission authorized the creation of a Task Force on Port
Policing and Civil Rights, with the scope of work comprising review of issues
including: Diversity in Recruitment and Hiring, Training and Development, Equity,
Use of Force, Oversight and Accountability, Police Union Participation, Budget,
Roles, and Equipment, Mutual Aid, and Advocacy. As the Task Force leadership
developed a structure and process for addressing issues identified in Motion 2020-15,
it determined that police union representatives would be included in each
subcommittee as a means to address the topic "Police Union Participation;" that the
topic "Equity" would be addressed in the Oversight, Accountability, Racial Equity,
and Civil Rights Subcommittee; and in conducting the assessment of all topics, each
subcommittee was "to consider impacts on diversity, equity and civil rights."
The overall assessment design was created by the Port and was divided into three
phases, with considerable overlap, consisting of an initial assessment of the
department; facilitation of the Task Force meetings and subcommittees; stakeholder
outreach (internal and external to the Port); drafting of interim reports, updates, and
this final assessment; and presentation to Port leadership, including the Commission
and Executives.
Process and roles for Task Force staff and 21CP were discussed at length, and it was
determined that 21CP would take the lead in suggesting areas of exploration to each
committee, with the goal of focusing on the most critical issues and ensuring that any
3 275
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
"mission creep" be intentional and transparent. The Task Force recognized that
inevitably, as this project progressed, there would be many areas that could be
included in the assessment, but that the priority would be on depth, not width, in
keeping with the areas outlined in Motion 2020-15 creating the Task Force.
To this end, 21CP worked in collaboration with subcommittee co-chairs to set the
substance for subcommittee agendas, facilitated the subcommittee meetings, and
created minutes reflecting the subcommittee work, while preserving the anonymity
of subcommittee members to encourage open dialogue. Placing this body of work on
21CP ensured visibility across subcommittees, allowing 21CP to help deconflict any
overlapping issues.
As is the case in most projects, the assessment required agility to explore additional
related areas of the department as issues emerged. In some cases, additional areas
for review were selected by the subcommittees; others were identified by 21CP or the
Task Force leadership. Modifications to the project included:
21CP was asked to conduct an internal "climate survey" of the department to
assess perceptions of equity and fairness.
The Advocacy Subcommittee and associated legislative work evolved
substantially during this project due to the large slate of police-related bills
passed in the Washington State Legislature's 2021 legislative session. As such,
the Advocacy Subcommittee work was replaced by implementation of a
"kitchen cabinet" of experts to provide Task Force support for the Port's
legislative engagement in real time.
The Budget Subcommittee was subsumed within the other subcommittees as
budgetary decisions regarding state law mandates from the 2020-2021
legislative session overlapped with 21CP recommendations. In short, it was
determined that triaging the costs of legislation and recommendations could
be done more efficiently outside a subcommittee structure.
B. Approach to this Assessment
21CP's assessment and recommendations are based on an analysis of three primary
sources of information or raw "data": paper, performance, and people.
4 276
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
First, 21CP requested and received an array of written materials and information
about and relating to POSPD's operations. This included policies, procedures,
protocols, training curricula, annual reports, and other similar materials. These were
evaluated in light of an array of emerging and best practices and national standards
and where relevant, presented to the subcommittees for consideration and discussion.
Second, 21CP endeavored to evaluate POSPD's performance in practice by examining
how use of force and complaints were processed at the case level. Similarly, 21CP
sought to understand the POSPD's performance in the aggregate and collected data
around officer activities to better understand the volume and type of work the
department engages in. 21CP also audited three days of training (one with the cochairs
of the Training and Development Subcommittee) to ensure that the training
presentations supported the values and information set forth in the training
curricula.
Third, and importantly, 21CP conducted conversations, focus groups, and interviews
with stakeholders, both internal and external to the Port. In total, 21CP spoke with
hundreds of people about the POSPD. At the heart of this engagement was the
subcommittee work, which included many stakeholders, internal and external to the
Port, who worked to deeply understand the complex issues in their assigned
subtopics. If the subcommittee work alone was the sum total of work accomplished in
this project, the project would still be valuable. Just the exchange of information and
the education of stakeholders especially those within the Port about their own police
department was important work. Reciprocally, the POSPD subcommittee members
were likewise exposed to a wide range of perspectives.
We also approach this report, as we endeavored to approach our work at the Port and
our interactions with stakeholders, with humility. Although we believe that our
review of Department policies and protocols, examination of aggregate and specific
types of POSPD performance, and engagement with community and Department
stakeholders provides a sufficient and accurate foundation for recommendations
grounded in best practices, the implementation of these recommendations will
undoubtedly be "flavored" by the Port and the POSPD. Because of the ongoing public
health situation, we were unable to spend the type of on-the-ground time with
stakeholders from which we have typically derived tremendous benefit. It is possible
that the limits of our approach, as with any approach of assessing the disparate
functions of this organization, mean that this report overlooks some details, misses
some nuance, or bypasses additional areas of importance.
5 277
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
III. ABOUT THE POSPD
The Port of Seattle Police Department is a general authority law enforcement agency
that provides specific policing services for the Port community and the communities
the Port touches, spanning several jurisdictions. At the time of this writing, there
were 151 POSPD employees (113 commissioned and 38 civilian).2
A. Organizational Chart
2 Note that for the demographic data, which is available as of April 2020, there were 123
commissioned and 44 noncommissioned employees.
6 278
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
B. Jurisdictional Map
The Port of Seattle jurisdictions are not contiguous and span a long corridor along
Puget Sound.
7 279
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
C. Officer Activities
Through Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) records and the Record Management
System, basic information about POSPD officer activities is available and which are
presented below.
Year Calls for Case Arrests Field Traffic
Service Reports Interview Stops
(CFS) Reports
(FIRs)
2018 90,098 3,147 712 1,200 4,618
2019 106,463 3,915 826 1,526 5,175
2020 92,186 2,257 454 683 1,652
D. Demographics of Department
Based on April 2020 data, there were 123 commissioned and 44 noncommissioned
POSPD employees.3 Of the commissioned officers, there were 103 males (84%) and 20
females (16%). Racial/ethnic demographics for commissioned employees in 2020 are
shown in the chart below.
POSPD 2020 COMMISSIONED
OFFICER DEMOGRAPHICS
Unknown 23
White 68
Two or More Races 6
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 2
Hispanic/Latino 1
Black/African American 5
Asian 6
American Indian/Alaska Native 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
3 Note that the current number of commissioned employees at POSPD is 113, or 10 fewer
than in 2020. Because officers have been hired while others retired or left POSPD for other
reasons, the officer demographics represented in the chart above will have changed.
8 280
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
E. CALEA Accreditation
POSPD has been accredited by the Commission on Accreditation for Law
Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) since 2011. The most recent published CALEA
report online is from 2018, however the POSPD underwent a CALEA re-accreditation
during the time period of this assessment. While CALEA is an excellent program for
ensuring that policies and protocols in critical areas are addressed, the work of the
Task Force and 21CP was focused on how those are areas are addressed, with
particular focus on national best practices and using an equity lens. In addition,
CALEA does not provide an agency with policies, procedures, or protocols instead,
it provides a mechanism for the Department to assess itself along many dimensions
and for CALEA representatives to verify compliance with standards. Many CALEA
standards relate to organizational, managerial, and administrative concerns like
"personnel administration," "detainee and court-related services," and "auxiliary and
technical services."4
Accreditation is not necessarily widespread across law enforcement. Departments
must initiate the process, and they pay to proceed through accreditation.
Consequently,
[o]nly 2 percent of police agencies across the country can claim
CALEA bragging rights, and only eight of 269 public safety agencies
in Washington have earned accreditation.5
While research studies have come to mixed conclusions about the benefits of CALEA6,
CALEA accreditation is important to POSPD, with the Department's Policy manual
including running references beside various policy sections to the relevant CALEA
4 Jim Burch, National Police Foundation, "CALEA Accreditation A Platform for Excellence
and Reform," https://www.policefoundation.org/calea-accreditation-a-platform-forexcellence-and-reform
/ (last visited Mar. 8, 2021).
5 "Should Tacoma Police Keep National Bragging Rights? You Have a Say In That," New
Tribune (June 16, 2020),
https://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/editorials/article243566112.html.
6 See e.g., R.L. Snow, "Accreditation: A 21st Century Necessity?," 40 Law and Order 84, 84
(1992); Manuel P. Teodoro & Adam J. Hughes, "Socializer or Signal?: How Agency
Accreditation Affects Organizational Culture," 72 Public Administration Review 583, 583
(2012); Stephen A. Baker, Effects of Law Enforcement Accreditation: Officer Selection,
Promotion, and Education (1995); G.W. Cordner & G.L. Williams, "Community Policing and
Accreditation: A Content Analysis of CALEA," in Quantifying Quality in Policing (Larry T.
Hoover, ed.) (1996)).
9 281
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
standards that the Department believes that the section satisfies. POSPD's
takeaways from CALEA's mandates are significant and the values espoused are
commendable. Additionally, to the extent that the CALEA framework and
requirements help the Department focus and organize its operations, there is clear
significance.
Ultimately, however, "CALEA provides agencies with a blueprint for 'what, not how'"7
leaving police departments to determine for themselves the best ways for how to
precisely address issues for their communities. The body does not certify the
effectiveness of what a department like POSPD is doing to realize the outcomes that
its community wants. CALEA is a framework, not a prescription. A department's
assertion that something has been "CALEA-certified" does not necessarily mean that
it aligns with best practices; that it is effectively in realizing positive outcomes; or
that it aligns with the values and needs of the community.
As such, while the accreditation process adds value, it is not a ceiling for POSPD's
efforts to provide its community with just, fair effective, and equitable public safety
services. Therefore, this report looks to best practices, the promising experiences of
peer departments, research, evidence, data, and experiences in other communities,
rather than assuming CALEA accreditation provides all of the answers.
F. LEXIPOL
The POSPD and many of its neighboring departments8 use the Lexipol policy
subscription to keep current on changing mandates. Lexipol is a private subscription
company that provides " a full library of customizable, state-specific law
enforcement policies that are updated in response to new state and federal laws and
court decisions."9 The advantage to such a service is regular updates based on
changing laws at the state and federal level, which can help smaller jurisdictions
like the Port of Seattle keep current on policy. Lexipol has already started providing
provided its subscribers with policies updated based on the Washington 2020-2021
legislation; given some of the concerns raised by WASPC and other agencies, the
POSPD will need to examine the policies provided and refine them as needed. This
7 Jim Burch, National Police Foundation, "CALEA Accreditation A Platform for Excellence
and Reform," https://www.policefoundation.org/calea-accreditation-a-platform-forexcellence-and-reform
/ (last visited Mar. 8, 2021).
8 Kent, Federal Way, Auburn, Tukwila, Des Moines, and Renton Police Departments appear
to use Lexipol.
9 https://www.lexipol.com/industries/law-enforcement/
10 282
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
service, combined with the CALEA mandates, undoubtedly focuses the department
on developing and maintaining policies. Additionally, when other regional agencies
subscribe to the service, as is the case here, mutual aid engagements and
cooperation between agencies are improved due to the common operational polices.
In contrast, there are significant downsides to using Lexipol. Even though Lexipol
purports to provide policies that accord with best practices, there has been
developing scholarship identifying Lexipol as "a barrier to reform."10 Certainly, as
discussed below, the fact that Lexipol did not update the Use of Force policy to
include the concept of de-escalation until 2020 drives home the point that the
company is out of touch with modern policing practices. While an assessment of the
overall policy manual is beyond the scope of this project, as a general note, 21CP
finds Lexipol designed policies to be overly complex and technical, hard to
comprehend, disjointed, and poor at providing clear guidance to officers.
However, this is not an "either-or" situation and many of the potentially deficient
policies can be modified and the POSPD reports that 45% of their policies are
modified to incorporate more progressive policing practices.
Recommendation No. 1. POSPD should continue to scrutinize the
intent and language of every Lexipol policy and modify the policies to
ensure that they meet best practices and not just legal minimums.
Additionally, as POSPD modifies its policies, the department should ensure that
policies are clearly stated and easily accessible to the public, which will help to
maintain transparency.
10 Lexipol's Fight Against Police Reform, Ingrid V. Eagly and Joanna C. Schwartz,
FORTHCOMING, 96 IND. L.J. (2021)("Lexipol has refused to incorporate common reform
proposals into the policies it writes for its subscribers, including a use-of-force matrix, policies
requiring de-escalation, or bright-line rules prohibiting certain types of behaviorlike
chokeholds and shooting into cars. Lexipol has also taken an active advocacy role in
opposition to proposed reforms of police use-of-force standards, pushing, instead, for
departments to hew closely to Graham v. Connor's 'objectively reasonable' standard. Finally,
when use-of-force reforms have been enacted, Lexipol has attempted to minimize their
impact."); Lexipol, the Privatization of Police Policymaking, Eagly, Ingrid, Schwartz, Joanna
C., Texas Law Review Volume 96, Issue 5."
11 283
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
G. POSPD Transparency and Critical Self-Analysis
Annual Biased Policing Reviews
As noted in the 2020 Annual Biased Policing Review (dated April 5, 2021), the
POSPD:
operates within a unique population demographic in that most of the
population is transitory in naturecomprised of passengers arriving
or departing through the airport or those assisting in this endeavor.
However, the majority of our department's enforcement related
citizen contacts are with citizens who are not part of our traveling
public, but rather members of the local population that access our
airport facility for reasons other than travel.
In the Review, the Department analyzed field contacts, citations, and arrests in the
context of City of SeaTac and King County demographics, finding no evidence of
biased policing on the part of POSPD officers.
Recommendation No. 2. As the POSPD gathers more data on officer
activity, the department should continue to scrutinize that data for any
disparities in use of force and work to ensure that POSPD's deployment
strategies and approach to policing minimize those disparities.
Annual Use of Force Reviews
Similarly, in the 2018 Use of Force Review11, the POSPD grappled with the issue of
disparity in use of force applications. Noting that "42% of the subjects on which our
officers used force were black appears to be disproportionate when compared to our
State and County population demographics," "a 2012 King County study described
SeaTac as 'Among the county's most diverse cities, with 61% persons-of-color and 31%
foreign-born.'" Additionally, "[t]he 2010 census indicates that some neighborhoods
near the entrances of the airport consist of black populations ranging from 25% to
49%."12 This same information is repeated in the 2019 Use of Force Review; in 2020,
while racial characteristics were presented, there was no analysis.13
11 https://www.portseattle.org/documents?tid=191&primary=191
12 Id.
13 Id.
12 284
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
The struggle in finding meaning in a disparity between the police activity, in this case
use of force rates, and the representation of any group in the population is
widespread.14 As noted by the Center for Policing Equity:
Population benchmarks provide only a crude method for estimating
disproportionality. They allow for an inference that force is being used
in a manner that is disproportionate to presence in the general
population, but do not allow for a clear inference as to whether the
force is disproportionate to presence in any particular area or to
legitimately provocative behavior.15
Additionally, the POSPD sample is small, with approximately 30 uses of force
annually. As such, every use of force carries an outsized impact on the overall
percentages that can be compared to representation in the population. Looking at
2019, the department reports that 30% of its force was on Black subjects, 60% on
White subjects, and 10% Other. The department noted that the percentage of force
on Black subjects decreased from 42% in 2018 to 30% in 2019. However, the raw
numbers show that in 2018, force was used on 14 Black suspects; in 2019, force was
used on nine Black suspects. Each Black subject of force in both 2018 and 2019
counted for approximately three percent of the total.
The primary recommendation to reduce racial disparity in use of force is modifying
the approach to homelessness at the Port, which has already begun and is discussed
in more detail throughout this report.
Communication with Port Community
Motion 2020-15 required the POSPD to post their policies publicly and during this
process there have been requests for information and data relating to use of force,
bias, and general police activities from the Port Commission.
14 The Science of Justice: Race, Arrests, and Police Use of Force, The Center for Policing
Equity, 2016. ("Despite an elaborated literature on how to assess racial bias in police stops,
there has been relatively little research on the appropriate distribution of coercive force by
law enforcement (Bayley, 1994).") https://policingequity.org/images/pdfs-doc/CPE_SoJ_Race-
Arrests-UoF_2016-07-08-1130.pdf
15 Id. at 16-17.
13 285
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
As discussed throughout this report, the "community" of the POSPD is primarily the
Port itself. Many of the Port staff who participated in the subcommittee work
commented that they learned a lot about their Police Department and that previously
they had not really understood what the POSPD police did. Additionally, several
mentioned that they were able to gain a better understanding of policing generally
by hearing from the POSPD presenters.
Recommendation No. 3. The Port should consider creating a quarterly
Port Safety Committee to bring interested stakeholders together.
An internal Port Safety committee could serve as an idea generator, a backstop to vet
police innovations, and a forum for the POSPD to present reports and information
updates. It could also serve as an on-going forum to continue the work of crosseducating
Port employees on the work of the POSPD. Additionally, there are several
recommendations in this report suggesting that different aspects of the Port
collaborate with the POSPD to provide better service for example in the area of
homelessness and crisis and those interests could be accomplished here. 21CP is
not suggesting that a civilian oversight entity is needed or would be advantageous at
the Port. Rather, to capitalize on the work of Port employees over the past year as
they have learned about POSPD policing services and have become invested in the
POSPD's success, and to continue that effort with other Port employees, a Port Safety
Committee that is advisory in nature is recommended. While this recommendation
envisions an internal Port committee, if there are other stakeholders that wish to
participate such as homelessness advocates that should be welcomed. Finally, a
Port Safety Committee provides an opportunity to involve and educate
representatives of Port Employee Resource Groups (ERGs), facilitating the
identification of ERG representatives who would be interested in participating on
hiring or promotion oral boards or in other capacities when Port employee input is
sought.
Recommendation No. 4. The Port should conduct a study of the
internal organizational structure and communications involving the
POSPD to determine how to best accomplish the goal of enhancing POSPD
transparency through regular engagement with Port leadership.
As is discussed throughout this report, it is vital that POSPD leadership be proactive
and transparent in keeping the Commission, the Executive Leadership Team, the
Port community, and other key stakeholders informed about its activities. To this
end, the 2020 Annual Report includes a goal to increase POSPD transparency in 2021
14 286
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
and several steps are taking place towards that end, which is in line with other police
agencies recognizing the value of communicating more proactively with the public on
a more expansive set of issues.16
Fostering organizational transparency involves more than simply an increase in
public information, however. "Transparency refers to the degree to which decisions
are being made in a manner that is visible to those inside and outside the
organization. The focus is not simply on seeing the decision that was made but having
an understanding of the process by which it was reached and the rationale for that
choice. Transparency encompasses the extent to which decisions that have been made
are subject to scrutiny and review by others."17 This level of transparency develops
through on-going exchanges of information, a mutual appreciation of factors
important to decision-making, and relationship building which fosters trust. The
study that is recommended should consider how the Port organizational structure
and communication protocols foster or inhibit transparency between the POSPD and
Port leadership.
Given the many ways the role of policing at the Port has been elevated over the past
year including the Task Force process itself that involved so many individuals from
throughout the Port which has resulted in a Port community that is better educated
about policing and more committed to positive outcomes for the POSPD; the
complexity of police operations; the ever-present potential for a high-profile policing
event; and the commitment to support POSPD's efforts to continually improve in the
changing law enforcement environment it is recommended that a study be
conducted to determine what changes might foster greater transparency.
As recommendations growing out of the assessment are considered, it will be
important to have direct communication between the POSPD and Port leadership to
ensure that the POSPD incorporates the interests of other Port components and to
provide a forum for the POSPD to routinely share information on implementation.
Regular involvement with the Executive Leadership Team could facilitate
communications and decision making when significant events involving the POSPD
arise, though other changes to the reporting structure and communications might
serve similar purposes.
16 Chanin, J. & Espinosa, S. (2015). Examining the Determinants of Police Department Transparency: the
view of Police Executives. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 1-22, citing Chermak, S. & Weiss, A. (2005).
Maintaining Legitimacy Using External Communication Strategies: An Analysis of Police-media Relations.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 501-512.
17 Id., at 133.
15 287
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
IV. ENGAGEMENT
Identifying and speaking with communities that come into contact with the POSPD
on a day-to-day basis was challenging. In fact, many of those that 21CP contacted
could not identify the POSPD, complained specifically and only about other law
enforcement agencies, or simply did not want to spend time meeting to discuss the
POSPD, presumably because they had no specific issues with the POSPD.
Additionally, the views of participants in community conversations may or may not
be reflective of the POSPD community as a whole.
Finally, this report cites, characterizes, and sometimes quotes stakeholder and
subcommittee participants. To ensure candid discussions and to preserve the
confidentiality of participants who sometimes shared sensitive experiences, 21CP did
not log the identities of who said what during the stakeholder engagement process
only their affiliations and the specific contents of what they said. Accordingly, this
report refers to particular stakeholders in generic ways such as "a POSPD officer,"
"a community member," or the like.
A. External Stakeholders
21CP appreciates the importance of getting input from the range of stakeholders who
have interactions with the Port Police and a potential interest in providing input to
the assessment. The Task Force structure itself was predicated on the value of
stakeholder inclusion, with Port employees, Police Department Officers, union
representatives, and subject matter experts involved in the work of the
subcommittees throughout the engagement. Because Port policing services are
provided in the airport, on the waterfront, and in cities surrounding these and other
Port properties through mutual aid agreements, seeking input from stakeholders
external to the Port was a priority goal of the Task Force and 21CP.
Task Force leaders introduced the 21CP consultants to the Port's Community
Engagement Department for help in identifying external community groups and
others who might have experience with the POSPD they could share. The Community
Engagement Team created an initial list of ten entities across all of the communities
where the Team is engaged that potentially had involvement with the Port Police
Department, and then refined that list to those groups most likely to have experiences
relevant to the assessment.
16 288
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
21CP conducted listening sessions with the following:
Drayage Truck Drivers: Drayage truck drivers are independent truck
owners who convey cargo to and from the Port of Seattle. To help facilitate
meetings with these truck drivers, a Community Engagement Team member
introduced 21CP to the African Chamber of Commerce President/CEO and a
regional operations manager who hires independent drayage drivers up and
down the west coast, who were instrumental in setting up these meetings. Two
meetings were held, with about eight drivers in each group. As the drivers
spoke, it became clear that their concerns were not with the Port Police so
much as with Port Terminal Security and the Washington State Patrol18.
Examples of complaints raised include:
o There is no scale to weigh trucks before leaving the terminal and drivers
incur a $500 fine if the truck is overweight. The problem could be
avoided with scales in Terminal 18 and 30 loading areas.
o Private security personnel at the Terminals are disrespectful, curse, and
need communications training. Fear of retaliation for complaining was
expressed, particularly for being banned from operating in the
Terminals.
o Rules, including those that could result in being banned if violated, are
not clearly articulated and there is no process to appeal.
o There are too many trucks at Terminals 18 and 30.
o In the one incident in which the Port of Seattle Police19 may have been
involved, a driver was in an accident with a longshoreman and felt that
the officer who responded sided with the Terminal.
Georgetown Open Space Committee: The Georgetown Open Space
Committee (GOSC) works to provide greenspace access for the Duwamish
Valley, including on Port property. One member commented that the Port
Police should have an outreach engagement plan and coordinate efforts. The
GOSC helped clear out a homeless encampment and would not want the Port
Police to do the clearing but would like help keeping it clear. While fencing has
been put up, it's not clear if it's to keep the area clear or for a construction
project. While the group noted the Port Police could help address drug dealing
18 Specifically, the drivers complained that the Commercial Vehicle Enforcement by the
Washington State Patrol was overzealous and that a policy of issuing violations, not tickets,
meant that there was no apparent due process to fight the violation.
19 The driver was not sure whether Seattle Police or Port of Seattle Police responded.
17 289
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
taking place near the Duwamish River and the Port, they did not want police
intervention for the prostitution activity also occurring. Finally, one person
said she'd been told that the police are responsive to fights in the South Park
area and de-escalate well.
Local Government Relations: Discussions took place with the Port of
Seattle's Government Relations Department and one of the four surrounding
cities where the Port has property SeaTac, Burien, Des Moines, and Auburn.
The two primary ways the Port Police interface with these four cities is in
mutual aid incidents (through the Valley SWAT or Valley Civil Disturbance
Unit) and around homelessness or other similar concerns. While King County
Sheriff's Office has contracts to provide policing services in many of these
South King County cities, a King County Charter amendment in 2020 was
predicted to potentially change local control in the contracting relationship. As
such, there also could be impacts when the Port engages in mutual aid on Port
property or elsewhere. For example, the City of SeaTac voted to end its King
County contract, and the Port pays a mitigation fee for using SeaTac property,
which funds seven Officers.
B. External Stakeholders Identified through the Port of Seattle Customer
Service Bureau
In exploring avenues for getting external stakeholder feedback about interactions
with the POSPD, 21CP contacted the airport's Customer Service Department, which
provided a demonstration of their Salesforce system (which they use to manage and
track contacts), including how matters are categorized, whether a potential threat is
involved, whether the incident was reported to the POSPD or other responder,
whether a complaint is involved, and the like. The chart below provides a summary
of contacts made with Customer Service in 2019, 2020, and through mid-April 2021.
These contacts received by Customer Service are categorized in a variety of ways and
21CP was provided a compilation of customer comments/questions that had a nexus
to the Department during the same time. There were 246 entries with an apparent
18 290
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
nexus to the POSPD, less than 1%, out of a total of 25,877 contacts.20 Comments and
questions originated in a variety of ways, such as by email, voicemail, or over social
media. The entries referenced a variety of topics, with some very general and others
more specific. Examples include:
Questions that might best be handled by POSPD, such as:
o Can a person fly to another state to take care of an outstanding warrant?
o How can someone get a copy of any security video footage in parking
area that might have recorded a break-in or car damage?
o How can someone get a copy of an incident report?
Requests for help that may or may not be something where the POSPD can
help, such as:
o Missing person last seen at airport or expected to arrive at airport
o Help enforcing custody agreement or protective order
o Lost/stolen items discovered after going through TSA security or from
shipped luggage
General complaints not involving an immediate incident, such as:
o Panhandling
o Homeless camping out
o Cell lot parking and shoulder parking
o Traffic enforcement, including that there was not enough enforcement
or too much enforcement
o People not wearing masks
o Police officers carrying rifles/AR-15s
o Not providing public information when part of the airport is closed for
security purposes
o Rowdy passengers returning from January 6 attack on the Capitol
o Too many dogs
o Bikes not a good idea in large crowds
Compliments about POSPD officers:
o Officers helping locate misplaced handbags
o Officers helping after car hit by bus on Airport Expressway
20 The relatively low number of Customer Service contacts with a nexus to the POSPD and
the even smaller number of complaints is consistent with customer satisfaction surveys done
on the POSPD. Respondents indicated an "Excellent" or "Above Average" experience as
follows: 89% in 2018, 92% in 2019, and 84% in 2020.
19 291
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
o Officer M.'s "extraordinary service"
o Traffic support: 6 compliments for Officer T.
o Returned lost cell phone
o Officers helped elderly person
Complaints about POSPD officers:
o Officers accused mother of having tracking device on phone that had
been stolen; they were rude and did not apologize
o Assault by someone in "parking department"
o 3 Officers and sergeant claimed narcotics in bags officers were
disrespectful, rude, searched bags in front of everyone
o Sexual assault by police
o Told to limit time in meditation room
o Discriminated against in traffic enforcement
o Harassment by traffic control
o Officer not informed about service animals, though acknowledge
trespassing and officers were respectful
o White officers profiling and harassing a black in Muslim gears (sic)
o Traffic enforcement officer did not make white people in nice cars move
but yelled at us
The data compilation provided to 21CP did not include information on how matters
were handled, and it's disconcerting to not have confirmation that the most serious
complaints, such as the claim of sexual assault or racial/religious profiling, were
handled appropriately. However, Customer Service staff indicated that they follow
up with the customer if more information is needed and will use Port resources to
check into relevant details. There are protocols staff follow when a safety threat is
involved or when other matters call for an immediate response from police, fire, or
others. On occasion, the Customer Service staff person will consult with the Sergeant
heading up the Office of Professional Accountability (OPA), to confer on a comment
or question received. But staff indicated that there was a lot of individual discretion
involved with their work and there are no written protocols about how to handle
complaints involving POSPD officers.
20 292
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Recommendation No. 5. Customer Services and the POSPD should
develop or refine protocols on the handling of complaints and
compliments about Port Police officers.
After initially drafting this report, 21CP was provided a document titled, "Reporting
Practices for Customer Complaints," dated July 27, 2021, that may address some of
the concerns raised. As 21CP did not have capacity at that point to assess the
procedures captured in the document, the Task Force should be aware of the
document when it is considering implementation of recommendations.
Ultimately, the OPA Sergeant and others at the Department are in the best position
to judge whether a complaint should be fully investigated or can be resolved through
other means. Conducting intake assessment on complaints involving alleged police
misconduct can be complicated by factors such as the need to preserve perishable
evidence, and the OPA Sergeant has the expertise and resources to handle such cases.
Further, where an officer's name has not been provided in the message left for
Customer Services, the OPA Sergeant has the means to identify the person more
readily, provided enough other detail is available. Finally, the POSPD tracks all
commendations and complaints it receives, including non-meritorious misconduct
allegations. Regularly receiving information from Customer Service on contacts that
involve Port Police officers will promote department-wide accountability.
The best course of action would be to automatically and immediately refer all
complaints received by Customer Services to OPA. Regardless of the threshold used,
however, all information on compliments and complaints should regularly be shared
with the POSPD. This recommendation is included below in the discussion on the
need for developing protocols with Human Resources and Workplace Responsibility
on handling complaints involving the POSPD.
Finally, Customer Service has begun tagging terms associated with human
trafficking as part of the Port's anti-human trafficking initiative and there was a
discussion about the advantages of capturing whether a comment or question raises
a concern related to discrimination. Regardless of whether the contact involves the
POSPD, having the means to query how often comments or questions raise issues of
race or other discrimination would help in identifying potential problems of prejudice
or unfairness in Port operations, facilitate an intentional approach to tracking such
issues, and serve the Port's interest in promoting equity, diversity, and inclusion.
21 293
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
C. External and Internal Stakeholders Working on Issues of
Homelessness
Individuals who do not have airport business but are in the facility and appear to be
homeless are regularly reported to POSPD Officers, who make contact to clarify the
person's reason for being in a Port facility.21 If the Officer confirms that the person
does not have any legitimate airport business, the Officer provides information on
social services available and may or may not issue a Criminal Trespass
Admonishment, depending on the individual's willingness to leave voluntarily and
their history of prior contacts by the Port Police22. The resources compiled for the
Task Force were reviewed and prioritized by 21CP and listening sessions were
arranged with representatives of a Homelessness Coalition and a mental health
expert working with the homeless and training first responders on effective
interactions, including Port Police Officers.
The Homelessness Coalition representatives indicated that, during the pandemic,
more people sought shelter at the airport because libraries and other facilities had
closed and there was public transportation available for an easy trip to Sea-Tac. They
reported that POSPD Officers were not giving citations to these individuals and that
the airport had provided office space and was coordinating with the mobile crisis team
to provide alternative resources to those seeking shelter. It apparently is difficult to
discern a reliable estimate of the numbers of homeless persons at the airport or
seaport, though the mobile crisis team that responds on-site has had "very positive"
outcomes. From a racial equity in policing perspective, the Seattle waterfront is key,
because shelters have been closed and there is lack of public restrooms. However, the
Seattle Police Department is more likely to be involved on the waterfront, rather than
POSPD. Finally, the Homelessness Coalition representatives noted they were
impressed with a recent presentation on the POSPD response to homelessness issues
given by Acting Chief Villa and Commander Minnehan.
The licensed mental health professional who provided input to 21CP is someone who
has worked extensively with law enforcement around the Puget Sound area, both to
co-respond to people in crisis and to train police on appropriate and helpful ways to
interact during these incidents. She teaches at the Criminal Justice Training
Academy and does ride-alongs with officers to role model effective response
21 21CP was informed that the POSPD currently does not track whether individuals who are
contacted in these circumstances are "homeless," though are considering such tracking
moving forward.
22 As reported in the Use of Force review, 58% of POSPD uses of force are in trespass cases.
22 294
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
approaches. She has had POSPD members in her Training Academy classes and has
done presentations and been present on-site at the airport to observe officers'
interactions with the homeless. It is important to integrate classroom and online
training with field experience and she noted that POSPD Officers reliably know what
resources are available and how to transfer someone to the hospital if needed, and
that some POSPD Sergeants have good insight on the complexity of issues involved.
The mental health professional observed that individuals experiencing homelessness
often have mental health and substance abuse problems, and sometimes demonstrate
extreme psychological stress that also can turn volatile. In such situations,
handcuffing the individual might be necessary for the safety of everyone, even if they
are to be transported to a hospital. She noted that they demonstrate "incredible
survival skills" in finding shelter and other resources and believes that with proper
training, law enforcement can respond to some of the most challenging behaviors and
not use force.
Government Relations for the Port was involved in discussions with the
Homelessness Coalition representatives and researched the possibility of 21CP
meeting with individuals from the Lived Experience Coalition (LEC) to learn more
from those who personally had encountered homelessness and sought shelter at the
airport. However, because Sea-Tac has been piloting a coordinated effort to prevent
non-traveling visitors to the airport and 21CP could not identify a time when they
would likely encounter a person seeking shelter at Sea-Tac, meeting with someone
with lived experience of homelessness who had previous interactions with the Port
Police would have been very difficult to arrange.
Recommendation No. 6. Port leadership should support the POSPD by
developing first responder alternatives to incidents involving the
homeless that do not involve armed POSPD officers and increase access to
holistic resources.
POSPD launched a six-month pilot Crisis Coordinator position on August 1, 2021,
with an officer who has extensive training and experience in crisis response serving
in the unarmed role. The job description notes that the Crisis Coordinator will be the
point of contact internally and externally for issues relating to crisis, will be familiar
with outreach services, have an understanding of mental illness manifestations,
track crisis services and laws, build and maintain necessary relationships, and
generally serve as a focused resource on this issue.
23 295
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Running a six-month trial of the Crisis Coordinator position is appropriate, allowing
the POSPD to assess whether the position as described meets the needs of the Port
and whether the Coordinator acting as the first responder in most instances will have
positive impacts, such as reducing the need for trespass citations and frequency of
use of force. Whether a permanent Crisis Coordinator or similar position ultimately
is recommended, homelessness should not be approached primarily as a policing
problem.
In addition, the SEA Cares Steering Committee composed of airport staff and other
stakeholders has been working to identify additional Port Resources or external
partners to supplement the Port's capacity to address homelessness. In discussions
with 21CP, the Committee identified the very real concerns around assigning
untrained, unprepared, and especially unwilling staff to handle interactions with
homeless people in the airport, especially given the potential for hostile or violent
encounters. Additionally, the committee is working with the developing King County
Regional Homelessness Authority and is attempting to identify available
homelessness resources in the South Sound Region.
Ultimately, the Committee identified the very same problems that other jurisdictions
are encountering despite the interest and the will to engage with alternative response
models - the lack of identified resources to address crisis and homelessness issues
presents a very real barrier. However, Port should not simply default to a police
response to homelessness and crisis interactions but bring together other aspects of
the Port to bear on the issue. That appears to be happening. And, as discussed
elsewhere, a Port Safety Committee could help support this effort.
D. Internal Stakeholder Engagement and Equity
POSPD Engagement
To get input on perspectives and concerns of those working at the POSPD, 21CP
spoke with POSPD employees and conducted a "climate survey" in the Department
to gather information anonymously. 21CP conducted listening sessions with over 25
commissioned and noncommissioned members of the POSPD, hearing from
individuals of all ranks, and a variety of positions and assignments. Sessions were
held both virtually and, as the state of the pandemic allowed, ultimately in-person.
The survey and listening sessions focused primarily on issues of equity whether
employees experienced themselves and observed for others a level playing field when
it came to assignments, promotions, and other workplace events. Highlights from the
24 296
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
survey are summarized below, including instances where similar themes were heard
in the listening sessions. However, before discussing these themes and to put the
survey and listening sessions in perspective, it is important to understand the various
ways that equity in policing has been approached.
Equity
While the term "racial equity" can be ascribed different meanings in the context of
policing, the term often focuses on whether police enforcement activities are fair,
impartial, and objective. The Center for Policing Equity exemplifies this approach,
with research scientists and others working with law enforcement organizations to
identify activities that produce inequity by collecting and analyzing operational
data.23 For example, traffic stops, arrests, use of force incidents, and other police
contacts might be analyzed to determine if there is evidence that Blacks or other
racial/ethnic groups are the subjects of police enforcement at a disproportionate rate
given their representation in the relevant population. Where activities resulting in
disproportionate impacts are identified, police agencies can adopt strategies to lessen
inequitable results, such as seen when New York City Police Department stop-andfrisk
practices were challenged as being unconstitutional.24
Although disparate impact and treatment may stem from explicit bias and racism,
not all disparities necessarily arise from intentional or conscious bias. Research has
increasingly confirmed that, even among individuals with an express commitment to
treating people equally, "attitudes or stereotypes . . . [may] affect our understanding,
actions, and decisions . . . involuntarily and without an individual's awareness or
intentional control." Indeed, everyone from lawyers and judges to physicians and
teachers appears to have implicit, or subconscious, biases to some extent because,
in the same way that the brain is hard-wired to identify patterns and associate
certain characteristics with certain phenomena. 25
Research into implicit bias, or our unconscious associations about groups of people
based on their culture, identity, and larger societal biases, has increased for law
enforcement and in many other arenas. However, while many police departments are
offering implicit bias training, evidence that it reduces biased behavior in police
activities with the public is lacking.26 Nonetheless, even those who criticize implicit
23 https://policingequity.org
24 https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/issues/discriminatory-policing
26 https://counciloncj.foleon.com/policing/assessing-the-evidence/vii-implicit-bias/
25 297
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
bias training conclude that if it helps law enforcement to begin thinking about the
role of bias, such training is still worthwhile.27 Also, it has been observed that implicit
bias training might pair well with duty to intervene and mandatory reporting
policies, both of which are required by recently enacted Washington State legislation
and help to address the underlying culture of policing.28
It may also be the case that some explanation for disparity with respect to law
enforcement activity is related to disparities across the criminal justice system and
broader social life. Systemic racism and enduring bias in education, housing,
employment, the courts, public health, and other foundational areas of American life
may be reflected in data on those with whom police departments interact, arrest, and
the like.
Regardless of the web of reasons for why there are disparities, police departments
occupy a singular place in helping to consider and implement solutions that might
address and affect disparate outcomes. A critical part of addressing disparities in law
enforcement is ensuring that a department has the policies, procedures, training, and
processes for critical self-analysis in place that can identify disparities and work with
the community to determine if it might adopt different approaches that would reduce
disparity.
Policing equity also is used by some to focus on aspects of the police-civilian
interaction that are tied up in social and cultural norms about authority, politeness,
and body language that guide how both the officer and the citizen should interact.29
Inequities can manifest in how officers communicate, which can undermine
community members' perceptions of procedural justice and police legitimacy.30 For
example, one study found that Blacks were more likely involved with stops where
officers communicated indifference, were dismissive, or showed an air of
superiority.31 Given the racial and ethnic diversity of many jurisdictions, the
challenge is for police officers to be "both professional with each community member
they encounter, 'blindfolded' like Lady Justice, and simultaneously to see every
27 https://www.npr.org/2020/09/10/909380525/nypd-study-implicit-bias-training-changesminds-not-necessarily-behavior
28 Id.
29 Charles M. Katz and Edward R. Maguire, editors, Transforming the Police Thirteen Key
Reforms (Waveland Press: 2020), p. 97 (citations omitted.
30 Id.
31 Travis L. Dixon, Terry L Schell, Howard Giles, and Kristin L. Drogos, "The Influence of
Race in Police-Civilian Interactions: A Content Analysis of Videotaped Interactions Taken
During Cincinnati Police Traffic Stops," Journal of Communication 58, no.3 (2008): 530-549.
26 298
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
person as an individual with clear, current cultural expectations of law
enforcement."32
In assessing matters of racial equity at the Port of Seattle Police Department, 21CP
reviewed POSPD contact and subject demographic data, reviewed the Department's
reports on biased policing complaints, and learned about POSPD's approach to
implicit bias and other training that is intended to reduce any unintended inequities.
21CP also facilitated discussions in each of the subcommittees on equity in the
context of the subcommittee's topic focus. In addition, equity in the Police
Department's workplace was assessed through employee listening sessions and a
climate survey of employees. Of the various approaches to assessing racial equity in
policing, the focus on internal stakeholder experiences yielded the greatest concerns
21CP has regarding equity and the POSPD.
Recommendation No. 7. The POSPD should commence a campaign of
internal procedural justice training for all levels of the department to help
address the broad-based sense of inequity, especially with employees of
color.
Procedural justice training can be effective in improving the attitudes and behaviors
of officers and may result in reductions in arrests and the use of force.33 The four
practices of procedural justice also cultivate legitimacy across cultures: treating
people in the intercultural environment with dignity and respect, listening and giving
voice to subjects of enforcement activities, displaying transparency in decisionmaking
, and conveying trustworthiness in motives.34
While much of the procedural justice focus has been on the officer/civilian interaction,
researchers also have looked at the internal climate and culture of police departments
to assess the degree of transparency and equity within an agency as perceived by its
32 Marcus Paxton and Robert Strauss, "Cultural Diversity and Cultural Competency for
Law Enforcement," Police Chief Magazine, https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/culturaldiversity-and-competency
/
33 CCJ Task Force on Policing. Procedural Justice Training. Policy Assessment (March 2021),
https://counciloncj.foleon.com/policing/assessing-the-evidence/vi-procedural-justice-training/
34 Captain Marcus Paxton and Robert Strauss, PhD. Cultural Diversity and Cultural
Competency for Law Enforcement. Police Chief Magazine,
https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/cultural-diversity-and-competency/
27 299
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
officers, using the term "internal procedural justice."35 Studies have found a close
relationship between officer perceptions of organizational justice and their
commitment to their department, compliance with departmental policies, and
adherence to community policing principles.36 "Internal procedural justice refers to
officers' perceptions that their colleagues' actions particularly those of their
supervisors are fair and understandable, which demonstrates a key level of
respect.officers who feel respected by their supervisors are more likely to
understand why decisions were made; more likely to accept, support, and voluntarily
comply with those decisions, including departmental policies; and less likely to
challenge the decisions."37
As discussed in detail throughout the next section, drawing clear conclusions based
on the climate survey to "prove" or "disprove" bias at the department proved difficult
due to insufficient data and conflicting narratives. Importantly, the survey data
shows that in all measured categories, Non-White respondents were generally less
satisfied - they felt less valued,38 said they had less access to opportunities39, felt less
heard40, and were more concerned about fairness at the department.41 On the other
hand, when narrative survey responses identified inequities and unfairness, all but
one respondent explained their concerns as being based on cronyism42 or being part
of an "in-group," rather than pointing to race, ethnicity, or gender as the root case.
This is the same theme we heard throughout our interviews with employees while
the so-called "in-group" was predominantly white, most employees essentially said
that racial disparity is the effect of the cronyism but stopped short of saying that
racial bias was the cause.
35 See, e.g., R. Trinkner, T.R. Tyler, & P.A. Goff. Justice from Within: The Relations Between
a Procedurally Just Organizational Climate and Police Organizational Efficiency,
Endorsement of Democratic Policing, and Officer Well-Being. Psychology, Public Policy, and
Law, 22(2), 158 (2016).
36 See Footnote 12, p. 3 (citations omitted).
37 Organizational Change through Decision Making and Policy: A New Procedural Justice
Course for Managers and Supervisors. The E-Newsletter of the COPS Office, Vol. 8, Issue 4,
April 2015, p. 1-2, citing, Nicole Haas, Maarten Van Craen, Wesley, Skogan, and Diego
Fleitas. Explaining Officer Compliance: The Importance of Procedural Justice and Trust
Inside a Police Organization. Criminology and Criminal Justice (January 2015).
38 8/23 Non-White vs. 6/63 White Respondents.
39 11/23 Non-White vs. 8/63 White Respondents.
40 10/24 Non-White vs. 6/63 White Respondents.
41 8/23 Non-White vs. 2/63 White Respondents.
42 We note that allegations of cronyism and favoritism are not unique to the POSPD.
28 300
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
What is clear, however, is that there are a significant number of employees and
especially employees of color who perceive unfairness in opportunities and outcomes
at the POSPD. POSPD needs to respond to both employee perceptions of inequity,
whatever the root cause, and all ways disparity is manifested. This is likely best
accomplished globally through comprehensive procedural justice training.
Additionally, a quarter of all recommendations in this report are designed to address
fairness and equity both real and perceived in a variety of targeted areas.
E. Climate Survey
Introduction
An organization's capacity to evolve depends in large part on the "health" of the
organization as reflected in the perspectives of its most important assets its
personnel. "Climate surveys" are tools frequently used to measure the range of
employees' experiences, attitudes, and concerns in order to better understand the
workplace culture and identify any areas for leadership to focus attention in working
towards change. As part of its overall assessment of the Port of Seattle Police
Department, 21CP Solutions was asked to conduct a climate survey of POSPD
employees, highlighting perceptions of equity in the department.
The survey instrument was designed in collaboration with the Task Force and was
reviewed by members of the Port executive and legal departments and POSPD
command staff. The questions were designed to explore fairness and procedural
justice as experienced by POSPD employees and to identify additional steps that the
POSPD might take to maximize equity and inclusion at the POSPD.
First, as we attempt analysis by race/ethnicity in the report, we are limited by not
knowing the complete demographics of our sample. Thirty percent of respondents did
not provide demographic information. This gap in information is compounded by the
25 percent of POSPD employees that did not identify race in human resources
records. This means that any percentages presented are a percentage of the known
sample, not the total samples. As such, we are careful to present the number of
responses and the "N," or sample size to provide context. Furthermore, as the number
of respondents in some categories is very low, comparing percentages for those
categories against the overall results to test for disparities is challenging and we only
use percentages sparingly and intentionally.
29 301
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Similarly, while 21CP identifies and discusses potential disparities at a higher level
of generality White vs. Non-White; Male v. Female/Other; Supervisor v. Non-
Supervisor they are provided for purposes of noting areas for additional study,
rather than suggesting calculated findings supported by any level of statistical
confidence. That being said, this limitation should in no way serve to undermine the
importance of these observations.
Second, this survey tested perceptions of equity during a complicated time in the
POSPD's history. There are several publicly known Equal Employment Opportunity
(EEO) processes currently underway that challenge issues of equity that were
explored in the survey.43 Additionally, the full-time Chief has been on administrative
leave for over a year, which undoubtedly influences employee perceptions of fairness
and equity. Many employees commented during listening sessions and in the survey
that they did not understand how Chief Covey could be on leave for such a long time
without any explanation or expected timeline from Port leadership.44 While the actual
impact of these issues is unknown, they are important to note as part of the
atmosphere in which this survey and listening sessions were conducted and in the
overall context of this report.
Last, there is no current data to clarify whether these results are unique to the
POSPD or reflect instead a microcosm of the overall Port culture. Additional work is
underway to conduct a comprehensive climate survey of the Port, in whole, which
may provide further insight on this point.
Demographic Information for Survey Respondents
To account for the low number of respondents who identified within several of the
racial/ethnic categories and the difficulty in providing meaningful comparison
between very different sample sizes, respondents are grouped as either White or Nonwhite
for purposes of many analyses in this report. After controlling for the
duplication of multiple responses (i.e., the double count that would result when
43 POSPD employees have filed nine EEO complaints since 2017 based on allegations of race
discrimination, disability discrimination, retaliation, and employee ethics, as outlined in
Section VII, and it is unclear which of these employees participated in the survey or listening
sessions and the impact of a substantiated or unsubstantiated finding on their current
experiences in the department also is unknown.
44 21CP did not have any access to the investigation into the Chief or the results that
recently have been the focus of media attention. As such, none of the information relating to
that investigation could be incorporated into this analysis.
30 302
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
respondents selected more than one race), there were 27 respondents that identified
as Non-white. Sixty-eight respondents identified as White; the remainder were
"Other" or did not respond.
The identified gender breakdown of respondents was 63 male, 28 female, and three
Other.
Seventy-three respondents were commissioned employees; twenty-five were noncommissioned.
This breakdown is almost precisely representative of the department
as a whole.
Seventy-two respondents were non-supervisory and 24 holding a supervisory position
up to and including the command or executive level.
Respect for Individual Differences
Twelve of the survey questions were designed to examine the culture of respect
around individual employee differences. These questions were intended to elicit
perceptions of fairness, respect, the extent to which employees feel valued as
individuals, and the department's overall commitment to diversity, equity, and
inclusion. In addition to the low number of responses on some questions making it
difficult to draw firm conclusions, there also were competing narratives throughout,
with examples provided from open-ended responses to the survey and listening
sessions with POSPD employees.
Consistent with the Task Force focus on equity, we frame the survey results as best
we can from the perspective of Non-White respondents first as compared to the
majority. Fundamentally, across every category, Non-White employees had more
concerns and these disparities call for further exploration by the Port and the POSPD.
Additionally, while we do provide some results about gender, commission and
supervisory status that help to provide context, those categories did not drive
recommendations in the same way as racial differences in perception.45
45 One employee expressed direct criticism of the survey instrument and the survey itself:
If the intent of this survey is, in fact, to learn more about the experiences and
perspectives of those working at this department, it is poorly constructed. This
survey is filled with leading questions designed to illicit a particular response
from participants which will serve the apparent personal agendas of those
leading this task force.
31 303
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Non-White employees had far more concerns about fairness, but survey
narratives and interviews did not consistently attribute these issues to race.
Eleven percent of the survey participants (10 respondents) indicated a concern about
racial fairness and equity inside the POSPD. Of those 10 respondents, eight identified
as Non-White. Perhaps more importantly, eight of all 27 Non-White respondents
identified concerns as opposed to 2/63 of the total White respondents.
However, while ten respondents indicated there is unfairness related to race, their
written comments in the survey provided a different narrative. For example, one
employee stated: "There does seem to be special treatment within our walls but not
what may you thinkcronyism runs deep. This cronyism is not race or gender related
but is all about picking your buddy." This sentiment was echoed by another employee,
who said: "[t]here is an inequity issue. Can't say that the inequity is based on race,
gender, sexual orientation, etc., but it exists." This narrative that fairness is an
issue but is not necessarily driven by racial or other bias - is consistent with what
officers said during the employee interviews. For example, an employee told us that
"some people can do and say what they want, and others get in troublemight not be
race or gender, but it's still an equity issue."
Half (11/22) of Non-White respondents reported not feeling valued as an
individual by the Department.
Of the sixteen respondents who indicated they did not believe the department valued
them as an individual, 11 were Non-White. Importantly, half of all Non-White
respondents (11/22) reported not feeling valued by the department.
There were no comments in the survey related directly to "feeling valued," although
some of the comments regarding fairness and opportunity likely relate. During
listening sessions, comments regarding alleged mistreatment in other areas, such as
training, might also tie into whether employees felt valued or not.
While we clearly do not share the perspective that the survey was biased or leading, this
criticism misses the point of the work 21CP was asked to do. Of course, there were questions
in a climate survey directed at determining perceptions based on race and gender that is
an important part of ascertaining climate. Additionally, as should be apparent, we take great
pains to explain the limits of the data and the conflicting narratives to help prevent an overfocus
on apparent disparities that we do not fully understand.
32 304
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Of the 13 respondents that that did not feel treated with respect by
Command Staff, the majority were Non-White.
Fifteen percent (13/88) of respondents reported that the treatment of employees with
respect by command staff is a problem. Of the thirteen who expressed concerns with
respectful treatment by command staff, eight identified as Non-White and six as
White. Another way to consider responses to this question is that 8 Non-White
respondents out of a total of 27 said they did not feel treated with respect by
Command Staff. Of the 13 total Non-White and White respondents indicating
concern, three quarters were male, with one quarter female/other.
One respondent claimed direct retaliation by the Chief and command staff; another
noted that "under Chiefs Covey and Villa, I can honestly say our agency has never
been healthier." Some respondents complained about double standards or, as one
respondent noted, that some "commanders can do and say whatever they want."
Several spoke of cronyism, including command staff "holding vacant spots in their
special teams for their like-minded friends."
The issue of special teams assignments also came up during listening sessions with
some commissioned employees and this issue is addressed in detail below in the
Training and Development section.
Ninety-three percent of the department did not identify concern with the
system for hiring new employees.
Seven percent (6 respondents) expressed concern with the system for hiring new
employees. Of the six respondents who expressed concern, four were Non-White.
One respondent noted a fairness issue related to hiring lateral officers in particular:
"[t]his department is focused on hiring lateral officers from other agencies. Instead of
hiring lateral officers, internal [Port] employees should be given the opportunity to
get hired as an Entry-level." While not contradictory to the previous statement, others
spoke highly of the hiring standards: "[t]he Port of Seattle Police Department has the
highest background standards I have seen in the area and is committed to recruiting
officers who have a shared commitment to its core values, regardless of their
background and experience" and "[i]n my experience we also have one of the most
difficult background checks in law enforcement. I believe this high standard has
protected the department from troubles that other departments have experienced."
33 305
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Hiring issues are discussed in more detail in the section on Diversity in Recruitment
and Hiring.
More than half of respondents (8/15) that indicated concerns with the
promotions process were employees of color.
Seventeen percent (15/88) of respondents indicated concerns with the promotions
process. Of the 15 concerned employees, eight were Non-White and seven were white.
Twelve were commissioned employees and only one respondent was a supervisor.
While no comments were directed specifically at promotions, as discussed elsewhere,
a few spoke to cronyism in the selection of special teams, and the lack of opportunity
in joining special teams. One noted: "certain people are allowed to stay in highly
regarded and prestigious specialty assignments (SWAT, K9, BDU, Detectives) for 20
years or more, hoarding specialty training, assignments, schedules, and incentives
like pay and days off." Others said that the selection process for special teams was
not fair as: "[w]e do the assessment and rank the applicants and then pick from a
'pool'. I've personally heard Command Staff say I don't like (fill in the blank) and pick
another person."
Again, almost half (11/23) of Non-White respondents indicated that they did
not have the opportunity to grow and develop as much as their peers.
Those that said that they did not have the opportunity to grow and develop as much
as their peers included 11/23 Non-White employees and 8/63 White employees.
Fourteen commissioned employees and four non-commissioned employees saw this
as an issue. Additionally, some supervisors (4) and non-supervisors (14) said there
was a problem with growth and development. These results would seem to fit with
the perception discussed above that there is unfairness, though it's difficult to say if
it's based on race, gender, or "being part of the in-crowd."
Ninety-one percent of respondents said the department has a strong
commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion, although that perception is
less strong among Non-White employees.
The vast majority of respondents (91%) reported that they believe POSPD has a
strong commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion, including 17/24 Non-White
respondents and 61/63 White respondents. This perspective was consistent across
gender categories.
34 306
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
In contrast, however, twenty-three respondents felt the department places too much
emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Of those indicating that the POSPD places too much emphasis on diversity, equity,
and inclusion, 17/62 were White, 6/23 were Non-White, and all were commissioned.
There were few comments in the survey about this topic, but one respondent
expressed concern for favoritism of protected classes: "[a]t POSPD and the port of
Seattle as a whole, more favoritism is reserved for non-white, female, and/or LGBT
employees. It creates an environment where it seems like the value of white male
employees is less." While this perception was expressed and is reported here, it does
not seem to coincide with any other data.
In officer interviews, we did hear allegations that more progressive Human Resources
policies, such as not allowing discipline for officers being late because it wasn't
"culturally accommodating," was undermining the department's ability to maintain
order in the ranks. We do not know whether these perceptions help explain the
number of people who are concerned with too much emphasis in this area, but it
seems plausible.
Accountability
A separate set of questions focused on issues relating to accountability and whether
employees knew how to file a complaint, believed that complaints were taken
seriously, or feared retaliation when making complaints about race discrimination,
gender discrimination, filing union grievances, or taking job-protected leave.
Additionally, the survey and listening sessions with employees explored perceptions
of fairness in the disciplinary system and consistency at the supervisory level. White
and Non-White employees alike expressed concern about uneven accountability,
though some indicated they thought people of color were targeted for discipline more
often.
As discussed below in Section VII., a sample of misconduct complaints filed against
POSPD officers were reviewed to determine if investigations appeared to be handled
in an objective, thorough, and timely manner. However, it was beyond the scope of
this assessment to examine whether these complaints and any discipline that
resulted demonstrated uneven treatment between officers for the same behavior.
Further, the complaints reviewed did not necessarily capture all incidents of
counseling, training, or other less formal interventions by supervisors with officers,
35 307
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
nor all the specifics involved with EEO complaints that have been filed regarding
alleged unequal treatment. Rather, the survey and listening session feedback noted
below speaks to perceptions of uneven accountability.
The vast majority ninety-five percent of respondents say they know their
options with respect to bringing complaints about working conditions, but
half of all Non-White respondents (11/23) indicated concern that those
complaints were not treated seriously.
Respondents overall indicated they were knowledgeable about complaint filing
options. However, fourteen respondents out of a total of 87, with the majority (11)
being Non-White, said complaints about working conditions were not treated
seriously. Thus, considering all Non-White respondents, 11/23 had concerns in this
area. Nearly all White and Non-White respondents who expressed concern about
whether working condition complaints were treated seriously were Commissioned
employees. Perhaps unsurprisingly, all supervisors believed that complaints are
taken seriously.
Respondents overall were most fearful of retaliation for filing a union
grievance, with half of those concerned identified as Non-White, and Non-
Whites also expressed more concern for retaliation following a race or sex
discrimination complaint.
Respondents (27/87) were most concerned with potential retaliation for filing a union
grievance. Of the 27 who feared retaliation for filing a union grievance, half were
Non-White (13), which also represents about half of total Non-White respondents.
Men (21/58) were far more concerned than women (3/26), with the majority of
respondents indicating a concern being commissioned.
Overall, 14 out of sixty-six (14/66) respondents (all but one being commissioned)
reported fears about retaliation in response to a complaint of race discrimination.
Nine of the fourteen with these concerns were Non-White, representing over a third
(9/23) of all Non-White respondents. No supervisors reported concern about fear of
retaliation for filing a race discrimination complaint.46
Only five respondents said fear of retaliation for filing a complaint about sex
discrimination was a concern, though no respondent indicated this concern was
46 As noted previously, one respondent complained vigorously about retaliation and
victimization by the command staff and supervisors.
36 308
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
strongly felt. Of the five, three identified as male and two as female, while four out of
the five were Non-White.
More Non-White respondents (7/24) than White respondents (4/63) feared
retaliation for taking job-protected leave; all were commissioned personnel.
Overall, fourteen percent of all respondents (11/87) did not trust that they would not
encounter retaliation from higher ups in the department if they took job-protected
leave for any reason. Again, the majority of those concerned (7/11) were respondents
of color.
Over a quarter (22/85) of all respondents and well over a half of Non-White
respondents (13/23) did not believe discipline was applied fairly.
A significant number of all respondents, regardless of whether White or Non-White,
indicated they did not believe discipline was applied fairly. Looking just at Non-White
respondents, over half (13/23) expressed concern. Men were more likely to perceive
discipline as unfair (17/58) than women/other (4/25).
As with matters of equity discussed above, during listening sessions, some employees
thought Non-Whites were targeted for discipline more than Whites, while most
indicated nepotism or being part of a favored group was most significant in discipline
matters.
Some supervisors expressed fear of having a retaliation complaint filed against them
for imposing discipline, while others thought Human Resources was interfering with
their ability to correct performance issues. For example, one respondent indicated
that this perceived unfairness was not at the department level, but at the Port level:
"I chose "disagree" on the question if a misconduct complaint results
in discipline is it applied fairly. This is because the Port HR will not
allow the department to discipline officers who are lazy, don't handle
their calls appropriately, fail to qualify or who have substandard work
performance."
As is seen in other jurisdictions where the Human Resources function is
located outside the police department, misunderstandings related to roles
and process between the department and Human Resources can arise. A
recommendation for clarifying protocols between the POSPD, Human
37 309
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Resources, and other components involved in complaint processing is
included below in Section VII.
Over a third of all respondents (30/83) indicated that some supervisors in
the department do not handle employee complaints according to policy
expectations, while 19 respondents said supervisors were not consistent in
enforcing POSPD standards of conduct.
Over a third of respondents (30/83) said that some supervisors in the department do
not handle employee complaints according to policy expectations. Of those, equal
proportions of White respondents (22/59) and Non-White (7/23) had concerns. All who
reported such concern were commissioned employees. Nineteen out of 83 respondents
indicated supervisors are not consistent in enforcing standards of conduct, with 11
Non-Whites in that group, representing nearly half (11/23) of all Non-White
respondents.
One respondent noted: "[o]ne set of rules apply to the majority of the department,
while for a small group of 'people', those rules don't apply. Those 'people' are
protected. When things are brought up to the chain of command, things are not
addressed and appear to be swept under the rug." Another said, "Accountability is
selective and does not seem to go above a certain level."
Another respondent placed concern at the Port level: "certain individuals are allowed
to break policy or safety procedures time and time again because their speed dial
connects to HR."
Supervision
The supervision questions in the survey were designed to explore perceptions of
supervision and leadership by asking about integrity, relationships, support, and
performance evaluations. Overwhelmingly, respondents reported high praise for
supervisors and mostly for supervision as a whole. This is clearly very encouraging
and empirically rare in any organization. Still, the slight dissatisfaction in this area
was primarily with respondents of color.
Regarding supervisors:
All respondents reported that their supervisor treats them with respect and
treats them fairly.
38 310
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
All but one respondent (White) said their supervisor has personal integrity.
All but one respondent (Non-White) said they have a good relationship with
their supervisor.
Most (81/86) respondents said their performance evaluations accurately
reflect their performance.
Of these five, two were White and two Non-White; three were commissioned and two
non-commissioned; all were non-supervisory. With a sample this small, there is little
to discern here, but, unlike other organizations in our experience, this does not seem
to be a significant issue at the POSPD.
Only three respondents indicated that their supervisor does not help them
be successful in their job, but all were Non-White.
Despite the disparity, the concerns are still very few.
Only one respondent (Non-White) reported that their supervisor does not
encourage them to take initiative in performing their job duties.
One employee disagreed; no one strongly disagreed.
Work Climate
The last section of the survey was designed to query the overall work climate,
including how employees work collaboratively, whether there is a culture of
excellence at POSPD, whether there is departmental pride, and how internal
communications are perceived.
Opinions about co-workers were remarkably positive.
Ninety-eight percent of respondents liked the people they work with and reported
that the people with whom they work most closely are committed to producing top
quality work; out of all respondents, only one White male and one Non-White male
disagreed.
Eight percent of respondents (7) said their co-workers do not consistently strive to
perform their jobs well; three were White and four Non-White.
39 311
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Ninety-four percent of respondents agreed that they are encouraged to work together
to solve problems. Three Non-White and three White employees disagreed.
More than half of Non-White respondents (12/23) and a third of respondents
overall did not agree there is a climate of trust in the department.
Twenty-six respondents, 12 of whom were Non-White, did not feel that there is a
climate of trust47. The concern over trust was almost exclusively expressed by
commissioned employees.
Of the sixteen respondents that said their perspective is not heard and
considered, ten were respondents of color.
Eighteen percent of respondents (16) did not feel that their perspective is heard and
considered. Of those, 10 were Non-White employees and, perhaps more importantly,
10/23 (almost half of Non-White respondents) did not feel their perspective was heard
and considered.
A quarter of respondents expressed concern about communication within
the department.
Twenty-three percent of the department disagreed with the proposition that there is
good communication within the department. This included eight Non-White
employees and 10 White employees.
Eighty-nine percent of the department agreed that they received the information they
need from the department in a timely way. There was no appreciable difference
between employees' opinions on this. Therefore, while a quarter of respondents had
concerns about overall communication, most felt they were provided the information
that they need to do their jobs.
Departmental Pride
Ninety-four percent of respondents reported they were proud of their department.
Only three Non-White and two White respondents did not agree.
One respondent summarized pride in the department very well:
47 Climate of trust was not defined in the survey and, as such, may have different meanings
to different people.
40 312
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
We are police officers. Some say we hold the most powerful position
in society, because we have a gun and a badge. We must keep the
standard high. We can't afford to abuse that power the people have
given us. Public trust is everything. Initially, I was upset with this
entire process. I felt the Port of Seattle was on a witch hunt. But then
I realized we have nothing to hide. We do good work. We have good
people. I think once people look closer, they'll agree. I know people are
mad about what happened to George Floyd. I am too. But there
wasn't a Port of Seattle Police Officer there. If there had been
no one would know George Floyd's name and he would still be
alive.
Only one employee said that compared to other law enforcement agencies, POSPD is
not a good place to work. The rest of the department believed that it was.
The pride in the POSPD that employees expressed through the survey and in
listening sessions will provide an excellent foundation for exploring ways to enhance
internal procedural justice. Efforts to improve communication, give voice to all
employees, consistently demonstrate dignity and respect for employees, and
increased transparency in decision-making will enhance feelings of trust among
POSPD employees and help address other concerns noted here, particularly among
Non-White employees. While the data raises as many questions as it answers, an
approach involving employees in better understanding the complexities and problem
solving will help POSPD provide an experience of equity for all employees.48
V. USE OF FORCE
A. Motion 2020-15 and the Use of Force Subcommittee
Motion 2020-15 directed the assessment of Use of Force to include a review of policy,
specifically whether changes are needed to policies, practices, or protocols regarding
the use of weapons and tactics used to manage and disperse crowds, lethal
force/restraint, and crisis situations. Additionally, the assessment was tasked to
48 Tanya Meisenholder and Monica Brooker, "Fostering an Inclusive Work
Environment," Police Chief (August 2021), provides an overview of an approach taken in
the New York Police Department (NYPD) to facilitate discussions about racial identify and
race relations in the workplace, along with lessons learned during NYPD's experience.
41 313
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
examine current training and opportunities to improve training to provide officers
with alternative options to the use of force across contexts.
B. Use of Force Subcommittee Members and Workflow
The Use of Force Subcommittee was Co-Chaired by Sam Pailca, former Director of
the Seattle Police Department Office of Professional Accountability, former board
member of National Association for Civilian Oversight of Police and current board
member of the ACLU and Veronica Valdez, a Commission staff member and former
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) employee, which provided a strong background for
analysis of use of force issues. During the Task Force timeline, Veronica left the Port
to return to the DoD, and was replaced by Eric Schinfeld, another Port staff member.
Subcommittee C Use of Force
Chairs: Sam Pailca and Veronica Valdez (Eric Schinfeld)
Name Organization
Sam Pailca External Subject Matter Expert
Port of Seattle Federal and International Government
Eric Schinfeld
Relations
Veronica Valdez Port of Seattle Commission Office
Corey Guilmette External Subject Matter Expert
Sgt. Tygh
Port of Seattle Police Department
Hollinger
Monisha Harrell External Subject Matter Expert
Port of Seattle, Employee Resource Group,
Kenny Lyles
Blacks In Government
Isaac Ruiz External Subject Matter Expert
Jess Sanford Port of Seattle Subject Matter Expert
Anita Simmons Port of Seattle Diversity and Development Council
Michelle Woodrow Union representative
The subcommittee met five times between 10/15/2020 and 1/21/21, covering a wide
range of issues, including de-escalation, crowd management, crisis response, and
force review. To bring the subcommittee up to speed on the law, and emerging
practices in use of force policies, and the current state of POSPD policy, 21CP
provided an introduction and overview. This was supported by many presentations
from POSPD to inform the subcommittee about current practices, each of which led
to spirited debate and discussion. Sgt. Bram Urbauer presented on Use of Force/Deescalation
training. Commander Jeff Selleg presented on the department's efforts in
42 314
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
crisis intervention and briefly on the Lateral Vascular Neck Restraint (LVNR), but
the subcommittee declined to revisit the Port Commission's decision to prohibit all
forms of chokeholds and carotid restraints49. Sgt. Jason Coke presented on Use of
Force in crowd management situations, which necessarily overlapped with the work
of the Mutual Aid subcommittee. 21CP also reported out on the review of Use of Force
cases as they emerged and observations on use of force and de-escalation training.
C. Use of Force Case Review Methodology
The use of force case review was designed to serve as a backstop to the policy review
and work of the Use of Force subcommittee exploring use of force generally. 21CP
was not contracted to complete a comprehensive review of force; however, the
infrequency of use of force by the POSPD lent itself to a deeper dive than was
originally contemplated and this expansion of scope was important to understand
how the policies and training play out in practice. 21CP reported out to the Use of
Force Subcommittee on these review findings.
For most assessments, 21CP requests a random, statistically significant sample of a
department's uses of force over a material time period to ensure that, at a 95%
confidence level, the use of force cases reviewed would fairly represent the overall
population of use of force. However, as the POSPD has relatively few uses of force,
21CP requested all cases for 2018-2020, which included all of 2018 and 2019, and the
year to date for 2020 cases. In all, 21CP was provided 90 cases, all of which were
reviewed. Typically, these cases included officer reports, a sergeant's review, a case
disposition, and a Chief's letter back to the officer(s) about the results of the internal
review.
No files included video, audio, or other material, although many cases indicated that
the force was captured on video through airport or seaport security cameras. 21CP
elected not to include a video assessment of these cases because (1) the time and effort
49 During these discussions, the POSPD did not advocate for the return of the LVNR to an
intermediate use of force but inquired whether there was any place in policy for reviewing
the LVNR as a use of deadly force. The Port Motion prohibited all forms of neck and carotid
holds; recent state law is unclear whether LVNR could be permitted in deadly force
situations. Compare Section 3 (3) of Chapter 324, Laws of 2021 ("A peace officer may not use
any force tactics prohibited by applicable departmental policy, this chapter, or otherwise by
law, except to protect against his or her life or the life of another person from an imminent
threat.") with Section 2 of Chapter 320, Laws of 2021 ("A peace officer may not use a
chokehold or neck restraint on another person in the course of his or her duties as a peace
officer.").
43 315
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
it would take to do a comprehensive independent review of video was beyond the scope
of this engagement and (2) because security cameras do not capture sound, which is
needed for any real insight into tone and demeanor of both officers and subjects, such
review would not likely have been sufficiently helpful. As discussed in other sections,
if the Department decides to develop a body-worn camera program, the audio and
video captured from those cameras would be critically important for future force
reviews.
Additionally, many departments conduct interviews for high level uses of force,
rather than having officers create written reports. While this is true for the POSPD
for investigations into in-custody deaths by the Valley Independent Investigative
Team (IIT), there does not appear to be an internal process for interviewing officers
in high level uses of force that do not result in death. However, 21CP did not identify
any high level uses of force that would generally qualify for such interviews.
The lack of video, audio, or other evidence means that 21CP's reviewers could only
evaluate cases based on the representations of POSPD officers in reports and official
materials. 21CP could not look "behind the curtain" or compare independent evidence
against the officer statements. Consequently, the resulting analysis is, in some
regards, only as deep as the reporting was accurate.
Although the POSPD provided 90 case files, 21CP identified some cases that involved
more than one incident of force (when, for example, there were multiple subjects). As
such, 21CP uses incidents, rather than cases, for this review. Additionally, 11 cases
(with many incidents) in 2020 occurred on May 30 and May 31, 2020, were
attributable to mutual aid engagements in Seattle or Tukwila as part of the
demonstrations around the Derek Chauvin murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
Analyzing the use of force in this context, which included the use of pepper spray
(OC), tear gas (CS), and less-lethal launcher deployments, would require a much
deeper investigation and is well beyond the scope of this assessment. As such, those
11 cases have been excluded from the use of force assessment, and the
recommendations relating to such mutual aid crowd control events are contained in
the Mutual Aid recommendations section.
Finally, for the following sections, there were some cases in which information was
not readily discernable. Therefore, while there were 80 incidents within the review,
some questions have a lower "n" due to missing information. The total number of
incidents are provided with sufficient information within each section for context.
44 316
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Use of Force Case Review Findings
Three-quarters (75%) of uses of force occurred at the airport facility, with an
additional four percent occurring at seaport facilities and ten percent on other Port
properties. The remaining 11 percent of incidents occurred on non-port properties,
often in the context of assisting other agencies.
POSPD officers routinely used de-escalation strategies. There were only five
incidents that involved solo officers using force. As discussed in the section on deescalation
, summoning appropriate resources, whether additional officers, medical
personnel, or crisis response personnel is a key part of reducing the need to use force
in any given situation. There were several cases where port police appropriately
called additional units initially but reduced the number of officers on-scene once the
scene had been assessed. This shows good use of personnel and excellent modulation
of police presence, which can be perceived as overwhelming when too many officers
are present. In two-thirds of incidents that eventually resulted in a use of force, two
or three officers responded.
The racial breakdown of subjects on whom force was used is as follows; the vast
majority (91%) of subjects were male.
Value Percent Count
White 50.7% 37
Black/AA 37.0% 27
Hispanic 2.7% 2
Asian 2.7% 2
Other 6.8% 5
Totals 73
As discussed above in detail, methodologies to determine whether there exists a
disparity of use of force in relation to representation in the population are generally
unsatisfactory. Here, for the POSPD, when the subjects of force are predominantly
local and not members of the travelling public, it becomes even more difficult to
determine an appropriate denominator for determining disparity.
45 317
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Regardless, it makes more sense to simply accept the disparity and just take steps to
decrease the disparity.
To that end, looking at cases in response to cases that ended as a trespass or an
involuntary commitment, the percentage of Black suspects increased to 45%, and
subjects of color overall became the majority. This suggests, within the available data,
that finding alternatives to respond to addiction, mental illness, and homelessnessdriven
concerns would go a long way not only in reducing force overall but reducing
the disparity in the use of force on people of color within those populations.
It is also worth noting that, in the 12 cases where it was possible to identify that the
subjects of force were members of the traveling public, 11 (or 92%) of those uses of
force were on White subjects, either intoxicated, in crisis, or both, who were either
removed from planes or in conflict with airline or airport staff.
By far, hands-on engagement and controlled takedowns to the ground for the purpose
of forcible handcuffing were the most common uses of force. Less lethal tools were
rarely used.
The five Taser deployments were used on an actively aggressive suspect who stole
water and gum from Hudson News; on a suicidal person threatening to jump from
the Light Rail platform; against a violently resisting subject with a warrant; on a
female subject with a knife in her hand; and against a man who threw a metal
stanchion at officers and assumed a fighting stance. 21CP's reviews found all these
Taser applications to be reasonable, necessary, and proportional.
Value Percent Count
Hands on 84.8% 67
Takedown 83.5% 66
Strikes (kicks/punches) 6.3% 5
Pepper Spray 1.3% 1
Taser 6.3% 5
Firearm pointing 7.6% 6
Other (add to description) 20.3% 16
Totals 166
46 318
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
There were 12 uses of the Lateral Vascular Neck Restraint (LVNR) in the reviewed
cases, six of which 21CP found to be either unreasonable, not necessary, or not
proportional. To be clear, at the time these uses of the LVNR were in accordance with
POSPD policy, which permitted the use of LVNR as an intermediate use of force. This
was not uncommon in Washington State prior to the passage of E2HB 1054
prohibiting the technique altogether. National best practices, however, increasingly
either abolish the LVNR and all neck holds completely or allow an exception when
deadly force is required,50 and 21CP cannot support the use of the technique at any
lower level of threat. As such, the elimination of this technique by the Port and
subsequently by Washington State should resolve this issue.
Thirty-nine percent of cases resulted in identifiable subject injury; in contrast,
medical assistance was requested for subjects in fifty-three percent of cases, due to
either behavioral crisis needs or pre-existing medical needs.
Value Percent Count
Yes 39.0% 30
No 61.0% 47
Totals 77
Determining whether a subject was in crisis defined as an episode of mental and/or
emotional distress in a person that is creating significant or repeated disturbances
and is considered disruptive by the community, friends, family or the person
themselves or intoxicated is not an exact science, especially because medical reports
are often not provided to law enforcement. As such, reviewers attempted to categorize
persons in crisis and intoxicated individuals based on the known information in the
reports. Thirty-nine percent of individuals were clearly in behavioral crisis and
thirty-two percent of people were intoxicated. There is significant overlap between
these two categories.
Officer injury occurred in 22 percent of cases, the most serious of which appeared to
be a fractured nose and a bite to the hand, but mostly injuries were contusions or
abrasions. Again, the review was limited to the information contained in the use of
50 See e.g., International Association of Chiefs of Police, "National Consensus Policy and
Discussion Paper on Use of Force," October 2017,
https://www.theiacp.org/resources/document/national-consensus-discussion-paper-on-use-offorce-
and-consensus-policy;
47 319
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
force reporting; 21CP did not review any additional officer injury reports that might
provide more detail.
Reviewers were able to identify de-escalation efforts in two-thirds of cases, based on
what was documented by the officer. The remaining one-third predominantly
involved circumstances where de-escalation was not feasible because the subject
became assaultive. The de-escalation efforts frequently included communication,
trying to explain the officer's purpose, slowing the incident down, requesting
additional officers or resources, or trying to help the subject figure out a way home.
In one case, an officer was dispatched to a suicidal subject at the light rail station
who was threatening to jump from the platform. While a Taser ultimately became
necessary in order to the take the individual into custody, the officer's de-escalation
tactics were successful in bringing the subject to a less precarious position where the
Taser could be used without subjecting the person to the very fall officers were trying
to prevent.).
In another case, officers spent a substantial amount of time engaging with a person
in mild crisis to identify family members or a case worker but took no enforcement
action as the person was not a threat to themselves or others (predicate criteria for
involuntary commitment). Officers continued to monitor the person, who continued
to behave in irrational, but lawful, behaviors. Officers ultimately were required to
take her into custody when she entered the roadway, presenting a danger to herself
and others, which resulted in a low-level use of force.
In 90 percent of cases, the reported use of force was found to be reasonable, necessary,
and proportional. In eight cases, 21CP identified issues with the use of force. Six of
these cases involved the LVNR in circumstances that did not call for a use of deadly
force; again, although within policy at that time, these applications were flagged by
our reviewers for the reasons discussed above. Two other instances involved cases in
which subjects were prevented from voluntarily leaving the airport premises and
force was used to take them into custody. In both of these cases, had the subjects
simply been allowed to leave, no force would have been required. We recognize that
POSPD officers are asked to manage trespass cases with homeless individuals or
persons in crisis, many of whom they know to have previously been given trespass
warnings or arrested for trespass. We acknowledge very real policy considerations at
play in these circumstances: a person has been warned and/or arrested previously
and knows they are not supposed to be in the airport terminal, at what point should
an officer take enforcement action as opposed to simply prompting them to leave? As
48 320
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
discussed throughout this report, bringing additional resources to bear on the
homeless and mentally ill population at the airport terminal would greatly alleviate
these conflicts.
Misconduct was only identified by the department's review (and 21CP's review) in
one case. However, counseling and mandated training was also appropriately
required in several cases. In two cases, officers were counseled for taking law
enforcement action without backup, which either increased the severity of the use of
force or put the officer and subject at increased risk of harm. In another case, an
officer was properly counseled for simply pointing a firearm but not otherwise taking
any proactive action to stop an assault in progress. Because the officer chose to rely
on a firearm, he was unable to physically intervene because he was holding a gun,
which limited his options.
D. Use of Force Recommendations
Policies that guide the consistent and accountable application of force, including deescalation
and the use of alternatives to force, advance equity and fairness by
bringing clarity to expectations. When officers know what, when, and how to use and
report force, any disparities in application are more easily analyzed. As such, the
recommendations below, although in large part technical, will better promote
principles of equity around the use of force.
At the outset, the POSPD use of force polices have several elements that many
departments fail to include and are often the subject of recommendations by 21CP.
The POSPD policy properly sets forth:
That force may only be used for a lawful purpose. 300.2.2.
Clear and comprehensive criteria to determine reasonableness of force that
goes beyond the objectively reasonable language of Graham v. Connor. 300.3.2
That all neck holds are prohibited. 300.3.4
Restrictions on shooting at a moving vehicle. 300.4.1
Requirement that Tasers are mandatory equipment. 308.3
Weapon-specific prohibitions for Taser, OC, Batons, and Pepper ball launchers
308.5 et seq.
Recommendation No. 8. The department should consider
restructuring the Use of Force policies into a unified policy.
49 321
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Use of Force policies are distributed across several chapters that are nonsequential
and thus difficult to follow. They include:
POSPD 300 Use of Force
POSPD 302 Use of Force Review Boards
POSPD 306 Handcuffing and Restraints
POSPD 308 - Control Devices and Techniques
POSPD 309 TASER Device Guidelines
POSPD 310 Officer-Involved Shootings and Deaths
POSPD 312 Firearms
POSPD 313 Edged Weapons
POSPD 314 Vehicle pursuits
POSPD 318 - Canines
POSPD 431 Patrol Rifles
As such, the department should consider restructuring the Use of Force policies into
a unified policy, and the POSPD should take the time to develop a public-facing
explanation of its policies around the use of force, not only to aid the public's
understanding of POSPD tactics and procedures but which could serve as an internal
handbook for officers as well.
Recommendation No. 9. The Mission and Vision Statements in the
policy manual should more clearly indicate the Department's commitment,
in all of its activities, to valuing and upholding equity and fairness, deescalation
, the sanctity of human life, and achieving the best possible
outcome for all involved.
In addition to the Mission and Vision Statement, there are other areas of the manual,
including the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics, the Oath of Office, the Canons of
Police Ethics, and the Use of Force Policy itself, that should be reconciled. Overall,
manual appears to patch together too many competing sets of values that in some
instances are inconsistent and, thus, potentially confusing.
Importantly, current POSPD policy is clear in its value statement:
The department recognizes and respects the value of all human life
and dignity without prejudice to anyone. Vesting officers with the
authority to use reasonable force and to protect the public welfare
50 322
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
requires monitoring, evaluation and a careful balancing of all
interests."51
Policy language that follows, however, can be read as undercutting that commitment:
"Although the ultimate objective of every law enforcement encounter is to avoid or
minimize injury, nothing in this policy requires an officer to retreat or be exposed to
possible physical injury before applying reasonable force."52 While this is likely an
appropriate statement, any "possible physical injury" is insufficiently precise. Best
practices could connect the two concepts:
Police Officers have the responsibility to use force, when necessary, to
protect life and safety, to effect an arrest and/or keep the peace. It is
the policy of the Port of Seattle Police Department to value and
preserve human life when using lawful authority to use force.
Therefore, officers of the Port of Seattle Police Department shall use
only the amount of necessary and proportional force that the
objectively reasonable officer would use in light of the circumstances
to effectively bring an incident or person under control, while
protecting the lives of the member or others. Members are advised
that this Department places restrictions on officer use of force that go
beyond the restrictions set forth under the Constitution or state law.53
Recommendation No. 10. The De-Escalation Policy should be updated
to make de-escalation attempts mandatory, when possible to do so, and to
add de-escalation tactics.
The totality of the guidance on de-escalation in the policy reads:
When circumstances reasonably permit, officers should use nonviolent
strategies and techniques to decrease the intensity of a
situation, improve decision-making, improve communication, reduce
the need for force, and increase voluntary compliance (e.g.,
summoning additional resources, formulating a plan, attempting
verbal persuasion).
51 POSPD 300.2.
52 POSPD 300.3.
53 Derived from a combination of the New Orleans and Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Department Use of Force policies.
51 323
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
The term "should" is permissive the policy should unequivocally require deescalation
"will" or "shall." While there are certainly times when de-escalation is
not possible, the phrase "when circumstances reasonably permit" does not provide
clear guidance. The policy should use "when possible54" instead.
This recommendation is consistent with:
IACP National Consensus Policy on Use of Force "An officer shall use
de-escalation techniques and other alternatives to higher levels of force
consistent with his or her training wherever possible and appropriate before
resorting to force and to reduce the need for force."55
American Law Institute Principles on Use of Force. "Agencies should
require, through written policy, that officers actively seek to avoid using force
whenever possible and appropriate by employing techniques such as deescalation."56
Seattle Police Department "When safe, feasible, and without
compromising law enforcement priorities, officers shall use de-escalation
tactics in order to reduce the need for force."57
New Orleans Police Department "When feasible based on the
circumstances, officers will use de-escalation techniques, disengagement; area
containment; surveillance; waiting out a subject; summoning reinforcements;
and/or calling in specialized units such as mental health and crisis resources,
in order to reduce the need for force, and increase officer and civilian safety.
Moreover, the officers shall de-escalate the amount of force used as the
resistance decreases."58
54 Although many departments use "when safe and feasible," Chapter 324, Laws of 2021 (SB
1310) mandates that "When possible, exhaust available and appropriate de-escalation tactics
prior to using any physical force."
55 IACP Consensus Policy at 3.
56 Principles of the Law: Policing 5.04 (Am. Law. Inst. Revised Tentative Draft No. 1, 2017),
available at https://www.ali.org/media/filer_public/f2/80/f2804962-6431-4535-9649-
34c5f872140e/policing-uof-online.pdf.
57 Seattle Police Department Manual, Section 8.100: Using Force (rev. Sep. 15, 2019),
https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-8---use-of-force/8100---de-escalation.
58 New Orleans Police Department Use of Force Policy, at 5, available at
https://www.nola.gov/getattachment/NOPD/NOPD-Consent-Decree/Chapter-1-3-Use-of-
Force.pdf/.
52 324
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Additionally, while the POSPD policy suggests a few tactics, E2SHB 1310 requires
de-escalation considerations "such as: creating physical distance by employing
tactical repositioning and repositioning as often as necessary to maintain the benefit
of time, distance, and cover; when there are multiple officers, designating one officer
to communicate in order to avoid competing commands; calling for additional
resources such as a crisis intervention team or mental health professional when
possible; calling for back-up officers when encountering resistance; taking as much
time as necessary, without using physical force or weapons; and leaving the area if
there is no threat of imminent harm and no crime has been committed, is being
committed, or is about to be committed."
The internally developed de-escalation training, which supports this policy, is
discussed in the Training and Development Section below. However, briefly, that
training properly instructs officers to use time, distance, shielding, and
communication, which are the hallmarks of es-escalation. After the passage of
E2SHB 1310, new recruits should also be receiving de-escalation training supporting
the mandates of the new law.
These concepts should be provided to officers in policy along with the requirements
of SB1310 ser forth above they are not just training considerations.
53 325
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Recommendation No. 11. The Use of Force Policy should expressly
require that any use of force be objectively Reasonable, Necessary, and
Proportional.
POSPD 300.3 states that "Officers shall use only that amount of force that reasonably
appears necessary given the facts and circumstances perceived by the officer at the
time of the event to accomplish a legitimate law enforcement purpose." The policy
does not appear to define necessary, though RCW 9A.16.010 provides the following
definition: "'Necessary' means that no reasonably effective alternative to the use of
force appeared to exist and that the amount of force used was reasonable to effect the
lawful purpose intended." This definition is also used in POSPD department
training59. As the language in RCW 9A.16.010 already incorporates the "no
reasonably effective alternative to the use of force language," it appears that
"reasonably necessary" is likely redundant.
Many departments' force policies specifically require that the nature or severity of
the force that an officer uses be proportional to, or consistent with, the nature of the
threat posed by the subject. As such, the best force policies expressly require that all
force must be reasonable, necessary, and proportional.
"Proportionality requires that any use of force correspond to the risk of harm the
officer encounters, as well as to the seriousness of the legitimate law-enforcement
objective that is being served by its used."60 The "requirement of proportionality
operates in addition to the requirement of necessity" and "means that even when force
is necessary to achieve a legitimate law-enforcement end, its use may be
impermissible if the harm it would cause is disproportionate to the end that officers
seek to achieve."61
The POSPD added "proportionality" during this assessment, based on a Lexipol policy
update, however the concept is easily overlooked. The policy begins clearly with a
59 Chapter 324, Laws of 2021 (SB 1310) provides a different definition in the deadly force
context: "Necessary" means that, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonably
effective alternative to the use of deadly force does not exist, and that the amount of force
used was a reasonable and proportional response to the threat posed to the officer and others.
60 Principles of the Law: Policing 5.05 cmt. a (Am. Law. Inst. Revised Tentative Draft No. 1,
2017), available at https://www.ali.org/media/filer_public/f2/80/f2804962-6431-4535-9649-
34c5f872140e/policing-uof-online.pdf.
61 Principles of the Law: Policing 5.05 cmt. a (Am. Law. Inst. Revised Tentative Draft No. 1,
2017), available at https://www.ali.org/media/filer_public/f2/80/f2804962-6431-4535-9649-
34c5f872140e/policing-uof-online.pdf.
54 326
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
directive: "Officers shall use only that amount of force that reasonably appears
necessary given the facts and circumstances perceived by the officer at the time of
the event to accomplish a legitimate law enforcement purpose."62 Then the policy
discusses how reasonableness will be judged and then states: "Given no policy can
realistically predict every possible situation an officer might encounter, officers are
entrusted to use well-reasoned discretion in determining the appropriate, and
proportional, use of force in each incident."63 This policy does not equivocally state
that officers should only use reasonable, necessary, and proportional force, which is
best practice.
A 2017 survey found that over half of the country's fifty largest police departments
have a proportionality requirement.64 Some policies specifically use the term
"proportional"; others describe the concept in different ways.
Seattle Police Department "Officers shall use only the degree of force that is
objectively reasonable, necessary under the circumstances, and proportional to
the threat or resistance of a subject . . .. The level of force applied must reflect
the totality of circumstances surrounding the situation, including the presence
of imminent danger to officers or others . . . The more immediate the threat
and the more likely that the threat will result in death or serious physical
injury, the greater the level of force that may be objectively reasonable and
necessary to counter it."65
New York Police Department "Only the amount of force necessary to
overcome resistance will be used to effect an arrest or take a mentally ill or
emotionally disturbed person into custody . . .. All members of the service at
the scene of a police incident must . . . use minimum necessary force."66
62 POSPD 300.3
63 Id.
64 Brandon L. Garrett & Seth W. Stoughton, "A Tactical Fourth Amendment," 103 V. L. Rev.
211 (2017).
65 Seattle Police Department Manual, Section 8.000: Use of Force Core Principles, available
at https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-8---use-of-force/8000---use-of-force-coreprinciples.
66 New York Police Department, General Regulations, Procedure No. 203-11: Use of Force at
1 (Aug. 1, 2013),
http://www.nyc.gov/html/oignypd/assets/downloads/pdf/oig_nypd_use_of_force_report_-
_oct_1_2015.pdf.
55 327
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Recommendation No. 12. The Use of Force Policy should require
officers to provide a warning, when safe and feasible, before using any
force.
The United States Supreme Court has predicated the use of deadly force against
felony suspects fleeing escape on, "where feasible, some warning ha[ving] been given"
by the officer.67 This is consistent with United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of
Force and Firearms and its provision that "when law enforcement is faced with an
imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, officers must," among other things,
"give a clear warning" unless doing so "would unduly place the law enforcement
officers at risk," would create a risk of death or serious harm to others, or would be
"clearly inappropriate or pointless in the circumstances."68
21CP observes here that some organizations and departments focus exclusively on
the provision of warnings before the use of deadly force.69 The importance and
reasoning behind this requirement easily extends, however, to the application of all
types of force especially considering that the use of less-lethal force will typically
correspond to less-severe threats and circumstances in which an officer has more time
and ability to provide a warning and to determine whether the subject is complying
with the warning before applying force. In other words, the feasibility of providing a
warning may be substantially greater or more likely in situations involving lesssignificant
applications of force than circumstances involving deadly force.
Consequently, a more general rule that requires officers to issue a warning, whenever
feasible, before using any force provides simpler and more straightforward guidance
to officers and, ultimately, allows for such warnings to become more automatic in
practice.
67 Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1985).
68 Amnesty International, "Deadly Force: Police Use of Lethal Force in the United States" at
23 (2015) (summarizing UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law
Enforcement Officials, Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the
Treatment of Offenders, Havana, 27 August to 7 September 1990, U.N. Doc.
A/CONF.144/28/Rev.1 at 112 (1990)).
69 See, e.g., Campaign Zero, Model Use of Force Policy, Section II,
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56996151cbced68b170389f4/t/5defffb38594a9745b936
b64/1576009651688/Campaign+Zero+Model+Use+of+Force+Policy.pdf (last accessed Jan.
13, 2021) (offering warnings as an alternative to physical force and requiring verbal warnings
before deadly force but not expressly mandating warnings before the use of non-deadly force);
Lexipol, Police Use of Force: Safer Communities Through Sound Policies,
https://useofforce.lexipol.com/law-enforcement/ (last visited Jan. 13, 2021) (noting a July
2020 amendment to Lexipol model policies seeking "to clarify that warnings should be used
whenever reasonable before deploying deadly force").
56 328
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Indeed, a number of police departments require a warning before any force is used,
whether that force is lethal or less-lethal, severe, or comparatively less severe:
Cleveland Division of Police "Where feasible, and to do so would not
increase the danger to officers or others, officers shall issue a verbal warning
to submit to their authority prior to the use of force."70
Northampton (Mass.) Police Department "When feasible, an officer will
allow the subject an opportunity to comply with the officer's verbal commands.
A verbal warning is not required in circumstances where the officer has to
make a split-second decision, or if the officer reasonably believes that issuing
the warning would place the safety of the officer or others in jeopardy."71
Even where departments do not have a blanket requirement to provide a warning
before any use of force, warnings are typically required before the use of less-lethal
instruments like Tasers and OC spray:
Philadelphia Police Department "A verbal warning shall be given to a
person prior to activating the ECW unless to do so would place any other
person at risk."72
Sonoma County Sheriff's Office "A verbal warning of the intended use of
the Taser should precede its application, unless it would otherwise endanger
the safety of Deputies or when it is not practicable due to the circumstances."73
70 Cleveland Division of Police, Use of Force: General, available at
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5651f9b5e4b08f0af890bd13/t/582c54ac59cc685797341
239/1479300270095/Dkt.+83--Use+of+Force+Policies+with+Exhibits.pdf.
71 Northampton (MA) Police Department, AOM Chapter 0-101.
72 Philadelphia Police Department, Directive 10.3: Use of Lethal Force: The Electronic
Control Weapon (ECW), available at https://www.phillypolice.com/assets/directives/PPD-
Directive-10.3.pdf.
73 Sonoma County Sheriff's Office, Office-Wide Policy and Procedure Manual, Taser Use,
available at
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/542ec317e4b0d41ade8801fb/t/590a3284be6594e6a30b
bd23/1493840516709/Taser+Use.pdf.
57 329
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Seattle Police Department "Officers shall issue a verbal warning to the
subject, fellow officers and other individuals present prior to using OC spray."74
Recommendation No. 13. The Use of Force Policy should require
officers to provide medical care within the scope of their training and
immediately summon medical aid to the scene.
POSPD 300.6 requires: "Prior to booking or release, medical assistance shall be
obtained for any person who exhibits signs of physical distress, who has sustained
visible injury, expresses a complaint of injury or continuing pain, or who was
rendered unconscious." Similarly, the updated draft Lexipol policy states "Once it is
reasonably safe to do so, medical assistance shall be obtained for any person who
exhibits signs of physical distress, has sustained visible injury, expresses a complaint
of injury or continuing pain, or was rendered unconscious." Other policies, such as
POSPD 309.7 (Taser) and 308.6.2 (OC Spray), provide additional guidance for
medical treatment following deployment of these tools.
In contrast, POSPD 466, which is not included as part of the Use of Force policies,
provides that "[w]henever practicable, members should take appropriate steps to
provide initial medical aid (e.g., first aid, CPR, and use of an automated external
defibrillator (AED) in accordance with their training and current certification levels."
As such, one section of policy imposes upon officers a general duty to provide medical
treatment, but that duty is confused by conflicting guidance in the Use of Force policy
that limits the requirement to summoning aid. The language in POSPD 466 is exactly
the language that should be considered for incorporation into the use of force policy
(or cross-referenced). Again, this may be another example where the department
policy when read in full context addresses necessary points but loses clarity in the
complexity and incongruity of the manual overall. Aligning the language of POSPD
466 in the use of force policies would, additionally, meet the requirement of the Valley
IIT interlocal agreement concerning the provision or facilitation of medical care.
74 Seattle Police Department Manual, Section 8.300: Use of Force Tools, available at
https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-8---use-of-force/8300---use-of-force-tools (also
requiring verbal warning before deployment of beanbag shotgun, canine, taser, and firearm
deployment).
58 330
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Recommendation No. 14. Policy should be revised to require officers to
report and document all force they use and/or witness.
As noted above, the policy requires officers to "articulate the factors perceived and
why they believed the use of force was reasonable under the circumstances." In
concert with the above recommendation, the policy should provide clarity on what
information should be documented and by whom and ensure that the department
continues to gather and track demographic information. The policy does not tell
officer how to document force or require officers to document force used by other
officers. In practice, officers do this more times than not, and often fill out separate
witness statements if they did not use force. Therefore, the policy should reflect
practice and mandate that all officers report force used, and force witnessed. While
this policy should be tailored for POSPD, a good example for consideration is:
New Orleans Police Department "Depending on the level of
reportable use of force, as set forth below, an Involved Officer (IO) and/or
Witness Officer (WO) may be required to prepare a Force Statement. The
officer shall independently prepare his or her Force Statement and
include facts known to the officer, to include:
(a) A detailed account of the force incident from the officer's
perspective;
(b) The reason for the initial police presence, e.g.: response to (nature
of) call,
on-view suspicious activity (describe the suspicious activity), flagged by
a
citizen (nature of citizen's concern), shots fired, or screams heard, etc.;
(c) A specific description of the acts that led to the use of force;
(d) The specific description of resistance encountered;
(e) A description of every type of force used or observed;
(f) Names of all assisting officers and supervisors participating in the
actions
leading up to the use of force;
(g) The name of the supervisor the involved officer notified, and the
time of the
notification;
(h) The name of the supervisor who responded to the scene;
(i) Names, if known, of any civilian witnesses;
59 331
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
(j) A description of any injuries suffered by the officer, subject, or
witnesses;
(k) Whether a body-worn camera was activated and its identifiable file
location;
(l) Whether a vehicle camera was activated and its identifiable file
location;
and
(m) Whether a CEW activation occurred, even if the CEW was not
discharged."
Recommendation No. 15. The Use of Force Reporting policy should
require that a supervisor respond to all applications of reportable force,
not just those that result in "visible injury."
Current POSPD requires that "A supervisor should respond to a reported application
of force resulting in visible injury, if reasonably available."75 Given the relatively few
uses of force annually and the current actual practice in every use of force case that
was reviewed, a supervisor responded to the scene the policy should be changed to
require a supervisor to respond to the scene of every use of force to investigate as set
forth in POSPD 300.7.
Recommendation No. 16. The POSPD should consider having officers
enter use of force reports directly into BlueTeam, rather than having a
supervisor gather and present facts. The supervisor's investigation and all
supporting materials should be consolidated in BlueTeam and routed to
the chain of command through the system.
Current POSPD policy instructs officers that "[a]ny use of force by a member of this
department shall be documented promptly, completely and accurately in the
applicable case report. The officer should articulate the factors perceived and why
they believed the use of force was reasonable under the circumstances."76 This open
question format does not mandate the collection of necessary information, which
apparently falls to the supervisor.
Once the officer completes the case report, a supervisor completes a Blue Team entry
(Blue Team/IA Pro is a relatively rudimentary but standard, widely used
administrative investigation tracking database) when the officer uses reportable
75 POSPD 300.7
76 POSPD 300.5
60 332
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
force. Having the supervisor complete data entry on behalf of the officer requires a
game of "telephone" rather than having the officer, with first-hand information,
document the required information.
Additionally, E2SSB 5259 creates an advisory group that will make implementation
recommendations on reporting, collecting, and publishing of use of force data reports,
as well as "traffic stops, pedestrian stops, calls for services, arrests, vehicle pursuits,
and disciplinary actions, as well as demographic information including race,
ethnicity, and gender of a crime victim or victims."
While the final requirements have not been developed, the law sets forth significant
data collection requirements, including, at a minimum:
The date and time of the incident The location of the incident
The agency or agencies employing The type of force used by the law
the law enforcement officers enforcement officer
The type of injury to the person The type of injury to the law
against whom force was used, if any enforcement officer, if any
Whether the person against whom The type of weapon the person
force was used was armed or against whom force was used was
unarmed armed with, if any
Whether the person against whom The age, gender, race, and
force was used was believed to be ethnicity of the person against
armed whom force was used, if known
The tribal affiliation of the person Whether the person against whom
against whom force was used, if force was used exhibited any signs
applicable and known associated with a potential mental
health condition or use of a
controlled substance or alcohol
based on the observation of the
law enforcement officer
The name, age, gender, race, and The law enforcement officer's
ethnicity of the law enforcement years of service
officer, if known
The reason for the initial contact Whether any minors were present
between the person against whom at the scene of the incident, if
force was used and the law known
enforcement officer
Whether dashboard or body worn The number of officers who were
camera footage was recorded for an present when force was used
incident
61 333
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
The number of suspects who were
present when force was used
The upcoming state requirements and the Port's interest in more comprehensive
metrics around use of force require that uses of force be documented in a more
systematic manner, rather than open narratives. It may be that the state develops a
Use of Force data collection portal similar to the SECTOR system used for traffic
ticketing, but in the meantime the POSPD should use Blue Team/IA Pro to its fullest.
This is best accomplished by adding data fields to Blue Team and having the officer
directly enter the information.
Recommendation No. 17. The POSPD should maximize its
transparency by publishing data and reports on its website and regularly
reporting the information to the Commission.
As the POSPD increases its data gathering, it should strive to increase its
transparency by putting out more granular data on officer activity, to include use of
force and crisis contacts. This is an increasingly common practice nationally.77
Additionally, as the department publishes Annual Reports, Use of Force Annual
Reports, Bias Policing Reviews, and reviews of misconduct complaint trends, the
POSPD should continue to ensure those are communicated formally to the
Commission and publicly available on its website.78
Recommendation No. 18. Video evidence should be downloaded and
included in BlueTeam or linked within the system.
While 21CP did not have direct access to BlueTeam/IA Pro, we were informed that
video evidence such as airport security and civilian cell-phone video is not
routinely linked in the system. Especially if the POSPD implements a BWC program,
all relevant evidence should be linked in the electronic case file for easy access for
reviewers.
77 See e.g., New Orleans Police Department https://nola.gov/nopd/data/; Baltimore Police
Department, https://www.baltimorepolice.org/transparency/overview; Seattle Police
Department, https://www.seattle.gov/police/information-and-data/use-of-force-data/use-offorce-dashboard
https://www.seattle.gov/police/information-and-data/crisis-contacts/crisis-contact-dashboard
78 https://www.portseattle.org/documents?tid=191&primary=191
62 334
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Recommendation No. 19. POSPD should create a standing Use of Force
review committee, to include a training officer, the IA officer, and
Command Staff, exclusive of the Chief, and tasked with reviewing every
use of force.
Ultimately, any use of force review process should entail a comprehensive, 360-degree
inquiry one that looks squarely at whether the force was consistent with the
Department's policy but also at the extent to which the force, regardless of whether
consistent with policy, suggests any tactical, training, policy, or other issues.
Currently, the POSPD reviews every use of force as follows:
"Each completed Blue Team entry and accompanying reports shall be
forwarded to the commander of the involved officer(s). The affected
commander shall review all documentation and, if needed, cause
additional investigation or documentation to be completed. The
commander shall also ensure the appropriate Blue Team entries are
made and have been submitted. Once the commander has ensured all
needed information has been compiled, the commander shall brief the
applicable deputy chief or present the Command Team with the facts
of the incident for further review and discussion.
The Professional Development Sergeant, along with an appropriate
department trainer (dependent on the type of force used), may also
participate in this discussion to provide subject matter guidance,
answer questions and address concerns. Final dispositions will be
determined by a member of the Executive Team."
While the process only calls for a briefing to the deputy chief or presentation to the
Command Team, in practice the command staff reviews every use of force, but
without the input of Internal Affairs or training unless requested. Also, currently the
Chief is part of this review, which could compromise the Chief's ability to be the final
arbiter of discipline should the Chief approve a use of force that later results in a
disciplinary complaint.
Additionally, policy calls for convening a Review Board "when the use of force by a
member results in very serious injury or death to another" or at the discretion of the
Chief of Police.79
79 POSPD 302.4.
63 335
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
The POSPD is already working on implementing this recommendation, which was
included in previous status reports. The draft policy divides force into "lower
threshold" and "upper threshold" force but also appears to preserve the prior Review
Board process for serious injury or death. This structure approximates the Type (or
Level) I, II, III distinctions drawn by many departments, and there is no apparent
need for the POSPD to draft this policy from scratch.
Cleveland Division of Police
Level 1 Use of Force: Force that is reasonably likely to cause only
transient pain and/or disorientation during its application as a means
of gaining compliance, including pressure point compliance and joint
manipulation techniques, but that is not reasonably expected to cause
injury, does not result in an actual injury and does not result in a
complaint of injury. It does not include escorting, touching, or
handcuffing a subject with no or minimal resistance. Un-holstering a
firearm and pointing it at a subject is reportable as a Level 1 use of
force.
Level 2 Use of Force: Force that causes an injury, could reasonably be
expected to cause an injury, or results in a complaint of an injury, but
does not rise to the level of a Level 3 use of force. Level 2 includes the
use of a CEW, including where a CEW is fired at a subject but misses;
OC Spray application; weaponless defense techniques (e.g., elbow or
closed-fist strikes, kicks, leg sweeps, and takedowns); use of an impact
weapon, except for a strike to the head, neck or face with an impact
weapon; and any canine apprehension that involves contact.
Level 3 Use of Force: Force that includes uses of deadly force; uses of
force resulting in death or serious physical harm; uses of force
resulting in hospital admission due to a use of force injury; all neck
holds; uses of force resulting in a loss of consciousness; canine bite;
more than three applications of a CEW on an individual during a
single interaction, regardless of the mode or duration of the
application, and regardless of whether the applications are by the
same or different officers; a CEW application for longer than 15
seconds, whether continuous or consecutive; and any Level 2 use of
force against a handcuffed subject.
64 336
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Baltimore Police Department
Level 1 Use of Force Includes:
Using techniques that cause Temporary Pain or disorientation as a
means of gaining
compliance, hand control or escort techniques (e.g., elbow grip, wrist
grip, or shoulder grip), and pressure point compliance techniques.
Force under this category is not reasonably expected to cause injury,
Pointing a firearm, Less-Lethal Launcher, or CEW at a person,
"Displaying the arc" with a CEW as a form of warning, and
Forcible takedowns that do not result in actual injury or complaint of
injury.
Level 2 Use of Force Includes:
Force that causes or could reasonably be expected to cause an injury
greater than Temporary Pain or the use of weapons or techniques
listed below provided they do not otherwise rise to a Level 3 Use of
Force:
Discharge of a CEW in Drive-Stun or Probes Deployment, in the
direction of a person, including where a CEW is fired at a person but
misses,
Use of OC spray or other Chemical Agents,
Weaponless defense techniques including, but not limited to, elbow or
closed fist strikes, open hand strikes, and kicks,
Discharge of a Less-Lethal Launcher/Munitions in the direction of a
person,
Canine-inflicted injuries that do not rise to a Level 3 Use of Force,
Non-weapon strikes to the head, neck, sternum, spine, groin, or kidney
area, and
Striking of a person or a vehicle with a vehicle that does not rise to
Level 3 Use of Force.
Level 3 Use of Force Includes:
Strikes to the head, neck, sternum, spine, groin, or kidney area with
an impact weapon,
Firearm discharges by a BPD member,
Applications of more than three (3) CEW cycles in a single encounter,
regardless of the mode or duration of the application, and regardless of
whether the applications are by the same or different members,
CEW application for longer than 15 seconds whether the application is
a single continuous application or from multiple applications,
65 337
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Uses of Force resulting in death, Serious Physical Injury, loss of
consciousness, or requiring hospitalization, and
Uses of Deadly Force/Lethal Force.
Additionally, given that POSPD averages only 30 uses of force per year, there does
not seem to be a need to bifurcate the review of cases. POSPD should simply review
every use of force holistically.
VI. MUTUAL AID
The term "mutual aid" generally refers to assistance under RCW 10.93, the
Washington Mutual Aid Peace Officers Powers Act and agreements defined by RCW
39.34, the Interlocal Cooperation Act. 21CP has reviewed POSPD policies and
agreements governing cooperation with other law enforcement agencies. However,
the subcommittee was also interested in understanding the "ad hoc" engagements
where POSPD provided backup or assistance to other jurisdictions.
Law enforcement has long understood that multi-agency cooperation can benefit
efforts to address activities which cross jurisdictional boundaries. It is also widely
acknowledged that a single police department cannot staff, prepare for, or respond to
large-scale natural or human-initiated emergencies which may occur in their
jurisdiction. For these reasons, public safety agencies enter into mutual aid
agreements with other agencies to obtain support and resources when such
emergencies occur. The idea is straightforward, but many agencies have learned
through some difficulties that successful mutual aid requires careful, advance
attention to the details of management, command and control, planning and joint
training.80
A Mutual Aid Agreement is the first step in a successful mutual aid arrangement.
The Agreement should govern the nature of the support, conditions under which the
support is provided, and roles and responsibilities of agencies and their personnel.
The purposes of Mutual Aid agreements include:
Coordination of planning;
Multiplying the response resources available to any one jurisdiction;
Ensuring timely arrival of aid;
Arranging for specialized resources; and
80 International Association of Chiefs of Police, Mutual Aid: Concepts and Issues Paper (2008)
66 338
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Minimizing administrative conflict and litigation post-response.81
Mutual Aid Agreements are formal agreements, entered into under authorization of
state and (often) local law, that require a formal request for assistance. Such
agreements generally cover a larger geographic area than generic, blanket aid
agreements. Agreements may be with neighboring jurisdictions, regional, statewide,
or even inter-state partners. Regardless of the level, current best practice calls for
arrangements to be memorialized in a written document signed by all participating
parties, supplemented by a deployment-specific operational plan that covers the
specific resources, tasks, personnel, asset allocations, roles, responsibilities,
integration, and actions that mutual aid participants execute respective to their
assignments.82
POSPD has granted all general authority law enforcement agencies the authority to
operate within Port jurisdictions, and has been granted reciprocal authority in most,
if not all, other jurisdictions.83 POSPD is a party to three formal interlocal
agreements under RCW 10.93 and RCW 39.34:
1. The Interlocal Cooperative Agreement Valley Special Response Team
(Valley SWAT), which includes with the cities of Auburn, Kent, Renton, and
Tukwila, and makes available "enhanced use of personnel, equipment,
budgeted funds, and training" to respond to high-risk incidents such as
"civil disobedience, barricaded subjects, hostage situations, gang member
arrests, high risk felony arrests, and narcotic/high risk search warrants;"84
2. The Valley Independent Investigative Team, which includes the cities of
Auburn, Des Moines, Federal Way, Kent, Renton, and Tukwila and serves
to "independently, thoroughly and objectively investigate the most serious
incidents involving police officers," including but not limited to:
Officer-involved uses of deadly force that result in death, substantial
bodily harm, or great bodily harm;
In-custody deaths or life-threatening injuries;
81 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Best Practices: Mutual Aid Agreements Types
of Agreements, Lessons Learned Information Sharing,
https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=765559 (last accessed June 30, 2021)
82 N.C.G.S 160-A-288.
83 https://www.waspc.org/police-officers-powers-act
84 Interlocal Cooperative Agreement Valley Special Response Team.
67 339
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Death or life-threatening injuries of a police employee;
Other matters as directed by the Executive Board"85; and
3. The Valley Civil Disturbance Unit, which includes the cities of Auburn,
Federal Way, Kent, Renton, and Tukwila, and provides "South King County
Cities with well-trained and equipped police response for effective crowd
control and quelling civil disturbances."86
A. Motion 2020-15 and the Mutual Aid Subcommittee
The motion required the assessment to include an exploration of how and when
POSPD engage in mutual aid, the protocols for that engagement to ensure alignment
with Port values and policing policies, and the formal agreements in place to ensure
compliance with Port standards when engaged in mutual aid. This assessment was
also tasked to examine whether and how the Port and partner agencies review these
mutual aid agreements on a regular basis, as well as the risks and benefits of mutual
aid in the various scenarios in which it is provided. Similarly, the Task Force was
asked to review the scenarios in which the Port calls for mutual aid from other
jurisdictions, what accountability measures are in place during those mutual aid
situations, and how POSPD protocols are enforced during those instances.
85 Valley Special Response Team Operational Agreement.
86 The Valley Civil Disturbance Unit (VCDU) Tactical Standard Operating Procedures.
68 340
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
B. Subcommittee Workflow
Subcommittee F Mutual Aid
Chairs: Milton Ellis and Captain John Hayes
Name Organization
Captain John Hayes (Ret.) Seattle Police Department
Milton Ellis Port of Seattle, Labor/Represented Employees
Loren Armstrong Port of Seattle, Legal
Port of Seattle, Diversity and Development
Lukas Crippen
Council
Sergeant Ryan Leavengood Union Representative
Efrain Lopez Port of Seattle, Employee Resource Group
Marco Milanese Port of Seattle, Community Relations
Keri Pravitz Port of Seattle, External Affairs
Aaron Pritchard Port of Seattle, Commission Office
Jim Pugel External Subject Matter Expert
Mian Rice Port of Seattle, Employee Resource Group
Commander Jeff Selleg Port of Seattle Police Department
Amy Tsai External Subject Matter Expert
Shaunie Wheeler Union Representative
The MA subcommittee met four times between 10/14/20 and 2/12/21 to discuss the
types of MA engagement by the POSPD, the coordination of MA in the areas of SWAT,
crowd management, and ad hoc engagements. The Mutual Aid Subcommittee focused
on understanding the operational agreements with jurisdictions contiguous to Port
properties and with the three primary task forces of which POSPD is a member
(Valley SWAT, Valley IIT, and the Valley Civil Disturbance Unit). The subcommittee
considered state law and POSPD policy concerning mutual aid and defined the scope
of mutual aid for purposes of this review. The group also reviewed pro-immigration
demonstrations in late January 2017 that involved mutual aid from other
jurisdictions and the after-action review by POSPD related to the event.
A substantial portion of subcommittee discussion concerned nuances of crowd
management, especially in light of the demonstrations of 2020 related to the murder
of George Floyd. Members distinguished between noticed events which are often
permitted and allow for engagement organizers and planning and non-noticed,
spontaneous events, which require a quick response.
69 341
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
C. Mutual Aid Recommendations
Recommendation No. 20. The POSPD should continue to take the lead
on updating current Mutual Aid agreements to drive best practices
regionally and align with the new state policing laws.
Based on FEMA guidelines, a Mutual Aid agreement should contain key elements
like purpose, benefits, authorities, definitions, governance structure and operations
oversight, licensure and certifications, interoperable communications, tort liability
and indemnification, insurance, worker's compensation, deployment notification,
reciprocity and reimbursement, termination, dispute resolution, modification and
amendment management, operational plan and procedures requirements, and
supplemental information.87 Additionally, based on discussions in the subcommittee
and on 21CP's experience in other jurisdictions, the POSPD should ensure that all
agreements provide:
Pre-emption by home agency policies POSPD personnel remain bound by
the Port's policies while engaging in Mutual Aid.
Use of Force
o Required de-escalation
o Permitted less-lethal tools and use
o Required provision of medical care within training
Prohibition on immigration enforcement
Consistent with Washington law, prohibition of pre-text stops when working
with federal law enforcement.
During this assessment, the POSPD (and specifically Acting Chief Villa) has shown
strong leadership in response to the 2020-2021 legislative session, which passed
many new laws concerning law enforcement. The POSPD funded legal support for
meetings of the Valley Chiefs (and other regional departments) to begin coordination
on policy development incorporating new law and discussion of any implementation
concerns. 21CP attended a meeting in Kent, WA, that was well-attended and
observed the regional departments working collaboratively to consider the mandates
of recent legislation.
At that meeting, several Chiefs suggested that there was already common ground as
most of the departments were Lexipol agencies and therefore crafting updates to
87 Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Incident Management System
Guideline for Mutual Aid (2017).
70 342
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
policy especially Use of Force policies would be relatively easy and would benefit
all of the agencies. However, some said that the laws are unclear and translating the
mandates of the legislation into clear policy could be difficult. At a follow-up meeting
in Renton, different Valley departments were considering different responses to the
recent legislation, but the POSPD took the lead on drafting revisions to the Use of
Force policy to hopefully drive towards consensus. And again, by providing legal
support to the group, the POSPD is helping to intelligently frame the response.
Recommendation No. 21. After engaging in mutual aid deployments, at
the Port or in other jurisdictions, POSPD should actively engage in afteraction
assessments and track all resulting recommendations.
Specifically, POSPD should:
Participate fully in after-action assessments with involved agencies
Independently assess each engagement
Track recommendations to ensure they are addressed (for example,
recommendations can be tracked in IA Pro).
While POSPD is already fully participating in after-action discussions regarding
specific incidents, the drafting of any report is left to the primary agency and reports
are not always provided (or kept in a retrievable manner). As such, this
recommendation would not only support inter-agency after-action dialogue but would
also require POSPD to examine any mutual aid engagements against its own policies.
Any lessons learned from either process should be triaged and tracked to ensure those
lessons are not lost and that feasible changes are implemented in practice.
Recommendation No. 22. The POSPD should develop its own Crowd
Management policy outlining the POSPD terms of engagement, facilitation
of First Amendment activities, and which specifically sets forth the
POSPD engagement strategy with demonstration leadership.
Although the Valley Civil Disturbance Unit (CDU) has a policy manual addressing
command structures, use of force principles, permitted equipment, training, event
planning, deployment, mass arrests, and record keeping, as well as standard
operating procedures that support that policy manual, the POSPD does not have its
own Crowd Management policy that would apply to those situations where the
POSPD staffs demonstrations that do not require mutual aid. POSPD reports that
they follow the same protocols as Valley CDU, but that is not documented anywhere.
As such, the POSPD should craft its own policy, which will serve two important
71 343
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
purposes: (1) to provide policy support for how POSPD engages in Crowd
Management and (2) the process of crafting such a policy can inform potential
changes to the Valley CDU policy manual and standard operating procedures as
recommended above.
Recommendation No. 23. The Port should add specific approval
criteria and processes required before deploying resources for Mutual Aid.
This two-part recommendation addresses both the approval process chain of
command and considerations for the chain of command in evaluating mutual aid
requests. In subcommittee presentations, POSPD explained that requests for mutual
aid from external agencies are vetted at the Deputy Chief level and on occasion
elevated to the Chief. The primary consideration for approval hinges on whether
there remain sufficient resources to cover Port jurisdictions in other words, the
POSPD apparently defaults to "yes" to requests for mutual aid unless it would be left
with insufficient resources.
Instead, 21CP suggests that the approval level be assigned based on the urgency of
the deployment and the potential for liability or reputational damage to the POSPD
or Port, and suggest the following:
Any Valley CDU involvement should be approved by the Chief.
Any Valley SWAT engagement should be approved by the SWAT
commander w/notification to the Chief.
Any Valley IIT engagement should require notification to the Chief.
For any event, including crowd management, POSPD should specifically
consider:
Any impact on Port operations
The values of the Port on whether Mutual Aid support should be
provided for any particular event
Whether there has been sufficient planning and engagement (when
feasible) to support POSPD involvement
72 344
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
VII. OVERSIGHT, ACCOUNTABILITY, RACIAL EQUITY & CIVIL
RIGHTS
A. Motion 2020-15 and Oversight, Accountability, Racial Equity & Civil
Rights
The Motion included a significant number of directives related to these topics. First,
it directed the assessment to look at how complaints by members of the public or
other Port employees are handled; in particular, the assessment is required looking
at how civilians are able to submit complaints, and how those complaint mechanisms
are publicized. The assessment should also include a review of internal reporting
mechanisms for police officers who want to report alleged misconduct of other officers
including racially-motivated misconduct without fear of reprisal or retaliation.
In addition, the assessment should review when additional Commission, Port
leadership and/or external oversight is needed to facilitate accountability and
transparency to the community, including any recommendations for ongoing
reporting of progress toward approved metrics and notifications to Commission and
Executive leadership of relevant complaints and reports.
Finally, the Task Force should review the Port Police disciplinary process and how
civil lawsuits brought against a Port Police officer are considered during that process.
The Task Force should consider how the Port Commission and Executive Director are
made aware of such civil lawsuits, particularly where "qualified immunity" is
invoked. The assessment should identify what protocols and oversight are in place to
ensure all officers in particular, Black officers, other officers of color and other
underrepresented demographics in the police force are treated respectfully, equally,
and equitably. The assessment should determine what protocols are in place for police
employees to identify and report any mistreatment experienced or observed that are
contrary to the Port's high standards expected of law enforcement, without fear of
retaliation or reprisal. In conducting the assessment, consider impacts on diversity,
equity, and civil rights.
73 345
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
B. Oversight, Accountability, Racial Equity & Civil Rights Subcommittee
Members and Workflow
Subcommittee D Oversight, Accountability, Racial Equity & Civil Rights
Chairs: Anne Levinson and Marin Burnett
Name Organization
Marin Burnett Port of Seattle, Strategic Initiatives
Judge Anne Levinson (Ret.) External Subject Matter Expert
Deborah Ahrens External Subject Matter Expert
Cynthia Alvarez Port of Seattle, Human Resources
Port of Seattle Police Department/Union
Officer Arman Barros
Representative
Nate Caminos Port of Seattle, External Affairs
Port of Seattle Office of Equity, Diversity and
Jay Doran
Inclusion
Oris Dunham Port of Seattle Police Civil Service Commission
Glenn Fernandes Port of Seattle, Audit
Officer Herb Gonzales Union Representative
Duane Hill Port of Seattle, Employee Resource Group
Mikel O'Brien Port of Seattle, Labor Relations
LeeAnne Schirato Port of Seattle Commission Office
Sgt. Kyle Yoshimura Port of Seattle Police Department
Michelle Woodrow Union representative
The Oversight, Accountability, Equity, and Civil Rights (Oversight) Subcommittee
met five times between October 9, 2020, and January 26, 2021. 21CP worked closely
with Co-chairs Judge Anne Levinson (Ret.) and Marin Burnett to refine and adjust
the proposed workplan as the subcommittee moved through different aspects of the
Police Department's misconduct complaint handling process. Anne Levinson provided
her expertise on oversight and accountability best practices and Marin Burnett
provided insight on the role of various Port components that can be involved in the
complaint processing system. Subcommittee members offered their own perspectives
and experiences to, contributing to robust discussions and useful input to the final
recommendations outlined below.
Note that the topic of protocols to ensure officers are treated respectfully, equally,
and equitably are addressed below, but are covered more thoroughly in the discussion
74 346
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
above on officers' perceptions on equity and the need to enhance the experience of
internal procedural justice. The issue of "qualified immunity" is addressed below in
Section X. Advocacy.
C. Oversight and Accountability Generally and at the Port of Seattle
Police Department
Law enforcement officers must follow high ethical standards and a code of conduct
established by federal and state law and delineated in an agency's policy manual,
directives, and other governing documents which embody an agency's values and
mission. The goal is that police officers have a clear understanding of agency conduct
expectations, both on and off duty.
To ensure that police services meet the high standards of integrity community
members expect and that law and policy demand, there must be a means to identify
and investigate allegations of police misconduct, with discipline or retraining meted
out as appropriate and recognition for officers who meet conduct expectations. For
the majority of medium or large police departments, this complaint handling function
resides in Internal Affairs or an Office of Professional Standards (or a similarly
named departmental unit). Sometimes this function is external to the agency or
shared with civilian oversight entities. Regardless of where the misconduct complaint
handling function resides, to be considered legitimate in the eyes of complainants and
officers, the process must be timely, thorough, and objective, and include appropriate
documentation and regular communication with the individuals involved. Allegations
of misconduct are investigated against agency conduct expectations as detailed in
relevant agency policy and protocols.
With input from the subcommittee, 21CP considered the POSPD's misconduct
complaint handling system, guided by the goals of understanding and enhancing:
Accountability who investigates and how is that decision made, who reviews
the investigation, how are complaints and investigations tracked, what
internal and external mechanisms exist to provide oversight or checks and
balances
Transparency is there ready access to the process by stakeholders
The following charts and tables provide an overview of the complaint intake process,
how complaints are classified, and alternative disposition outcomes. The number and
classification of complaints received at the POSPD 2015 2020 and the disposition
75 347
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
of complaints 2017 2020 are also summarized, along with a brief description of the
allegations involved and discipline imposed for cases that were sustained 2017
2020.
Misconduct Complaint Handling Process at POSPD
Complaint Intake
76 348
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Complaint Classification
Moderate or
Minor
Inquiry Major
Complaint
Complaint
Allegation, if
Moderate - more
true, does not Minor violation.
serious violation.
violate policy.
Discipline:
Major - criminal
Supervisor verbal warning
act or critical
handles. or oral
policy violation.
reprimand.
Excessive force,
Supervisor biased policing,
investigates. civil rights
violation,
discrimination.
Commander/
Discipline:
manager reviews.
suspension,
demotion,
termination. .
Supervisor takes
written
statement,
witness info, etc.
OPA assigns or
investigates.
77 349
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Six Year Overview of Complaint Intake and Classification
Complaint Dispositions
78 350
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Four Year Overview of Complaint Disposition
Discipline Process and Appeals
79 351
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Allegations and Discipline for Sustained Cases
Port of Seattle Police Department
Moderate/Major Complaint Investigations
Allegations and Discipline for Sustained Cases
Year Allegations and Discipline
2017
Moderate/Major 2 Sustained:
(1) Letter of Reprimand for Job Performance
(2) Termination for Criminal Act/Conduct Unbecoming
Minor 1 Sustained:
Letter of Reprimand for Conduct Unbecoming
2018
Moderate/Major 1 Sustained:
Termination for Criminal Act/Conduct Unbecoming
Minor 1 Sustained:
Letter of Reprimand for Disrespect Toward Citizen and Failure
to Follow Supervisory Direction
2019
Moderate/Major 2 Sustained:
(1) Dismissal from K9 and Last Chance Agreement for Conduct
Unbecoming, Unethical Conduct, Disrespect Toward Employee,
Threatening Behavior, Disparaging Remarks Against a
Supervisor
(2) Letter of Reprimand for Conduct Unbecoming
Minor -------------------
2020
Moderate/Major 2 Sustained:
(1) Letter of Reprimand for Insubordination with Supervisor
(2) Termination for Conduct Unbecoming, Prohibited Speech, and
Insubordination
Minor ---------------------
In addition to considering four years of summary information on complaint intake,
categorization, and disposition, 21CP was provided the files underlying inquiry and
complaint investigations. An initial check was conducted to verify the various steps
involved with misconduct complaint handling by the POSPD, from intake through
80 352
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
disposition and discipline, as appropriate. 21CP then reviewed a random selection of
the investigation files more closely, to determine if complaint receipt and other steps
were properly documented, whether witnesses were interviewed and relevant
evidence was gathered, if appropriate notices and letters to the complainant and
named officer were sent, and whether the analysis and disposition were well founded.
It was evident from the cases that were reviewed that the POSPD has a process in
place to treat misconduct complaints objectively, thoroughly, and in a timely manner.
While 21CP, like any reviewer, could almost always find something they would have
handled differently regarding the underlying incident or the complaint investigation,
there appeared to be a consistent effort to investigate and document what occurred
and to explain to the complainant in person and in writing the reasoning behind
POSPD's disposition.
Furthermore, 21CP was informed that if a complaint is sustained and discipline is
under consideration, prior misconduct allegations against the officer are reviewed,
whether sustained or not, and any related litigation comes to light during that
process. Depending on the seriousness of the discipline involved, Human Resources
and Legal Counsel will be consulted, regardless of a specific concern about related
lawsuits. However, litigation involving POSPD officers related to alleged misconduct
is infrequent, as seen in the discussion below on qualified immunity.
Where officers receive follow-up counseling related to a complaint, sergeants provided
a memorandum with an overview of the incident and what was said to the officer by
way of counseling. Even where a complaint lacked merit, one situation reviewed
pointed to the need for training more broadly in the Department, which was
documented. Identifying and following up on policy and training recommendations
regardless of the outcome of a related complaint reflects best practices in this area.
All of these elements serve the goals of enhanced accountability and transparency,
which contributes to complainants, officers, witnesses, and others perceiving the
overall complaint handling system at the POSPD as legitimate. As with other
internal and external aspects of policing that have been discussed, to the extent that
those involved in complaints perceive that the process is fair, they are given an
opportunity to be heard, there is transparency during the process and with outcomes,
and the final disposition is determined on an objective basis, they will experience a
sense of procedural justice and trust in the complaint handling system.
81 353
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
While 21CP did not review complaint investigations involving EEO concerns and
handled through Human Resources or Workplace Responsibility, data concerning
these complaints was provided as seen below.
POS Police Code of Conduct Individual Complaints Workplace
Responsibility88
2017 1 Complaint
1. Race Discrimination - Unsubstantiated
2018 No Complaints
2019 3 Complaints
1. Race Discrimination -Unsubstantiated/Retaliation - Substantiated
2. Disability Discrimination - Unsubstantiated
3. Retaliation Unsubstantiated
2020 4 Complaints
1. Race Discrimination /Retaliation Open
2. Race Discrimination/Retaliation Unsubstantiated
3. Retaliation Unsubstantiated
4. Employee Ethics/Conflicts of Interest Closed for Police Department Internal
Affairs Investigation
2021 1 Complaint
1. Race Discrimination - Open
POSPD employees expressed concern about the amount of time involved with
complaints investigated by Human Resources or Workplace Responsibility. Staff
indicated that efforts were being made to complete investigations more expeditiously.
88 Human Resources staff indicated that this information was up to date as of April 13,
2021.
82 354
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
D. Oversight, Accountability, Equity and Civil Rights Subcommittee
Recommendations
Relationship between POSPD Standards of Conduct and the Port's Code of
Conduct, including Avenues of Complaint
As with some other policies, POSPD Policy 340/Standards of Conduct is confusing to
read, internally disorganized, and does not consistently serve the goal of articulating
conduct standards in a way that promotes clear understanding by employees. In
contrast, the Port of Seattle Code of Conduct is plainly written and well organized,
clearly stating the Port's values that employees:
Conduct business with the highest of standards
Honor their commitments to one another, the community, and the Port's
customers
Recognize that employees are capable, high performing people who appreciate
the privilege of public service
Encourage employees to embrace the richness of a diverse workplace and
support employee development.
These values are then individually delineated without unnecessary repetition and
with clear guidance on where to direct questions concerning the conduct standards
and the complaint investigation process when the conduct code is allegedly breached.
However, while the Port's Code of Conduct offers easily understood guidance for
employee conduct expectations, it is still necessary that the POSPD have a set of
standards complimenting the Port's, but one that incorporates the unique values and
ethics associated with police services.
Recommendation No. 24. POSPD should adopt the Port of Seattle Code
of Conduct into policy.
To promote a shared understanding of conduct expectations among all Police
Department commissioned and non-commissioned staff and to further align the
Department with the Port organization, POSPD should adopt the Port of Seattle Code
of Conduct, including the clear guidance provided on where to direct questions and
the complaint investigation process, and then revise the current set of conduct
standards in the Policy Manual so that it complements the Port's, but incorporates
the unique values and ethics associated with police service.
83 355
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
This policy should also articulate how its unique standards of conduct relate to the
Port's Code of Conduct, collective bargaining agreements, MOUs, and other relevant
governing documents.
Recommendation No. 25. POSPD policy should make explicit the types
of complaints that should be pursued internally verses those that should be
handled through Port of Seattle Human Resources, Workplace
Responsibility, or other avenues of complaint, with explicit protocols
between components developed, including timelines for completing
investigations of employee complaints.
To understand conduct expectations for Police Department officers and rules related
to misconduct investigations, discipline, and appeals, reference must be made to
applicable sections of the POSPD Policy Manual, the applicable collective bargaining
agreement, the Police Officers' Bill of Rights and Code of Conduct/Workplace
Responsibility Handbook appendices attached to some collective bargaining
agreements, Port of Seattle Police Civil Service Rules, and the Port of Seattle Code of
Ethics & Workplace Conduct. With new Washington State legislation enacted in 2021
that creates additional conduct expectations e.g., the duty to intervene reference
will need to be made to the legislation and Department training bulletins, as policy
on point is developed.89
While the survey results indicate that the vast majority of survey respondents know
their options for filing complaints, the alternatives are not clearly stated in POSPD
policy and can require reference to a number of documents. The OPA Sergeant
indicated that Human Resources is consulted as needed when it is not clear whether
a matter should be handled internally or referred to Human Resources or Workplace
Responsibility. While it is very helpful to have an established relationship that
facilitates such a discussion, more clarity in policy could obviate the need to consult
with Human Resources. The types of complaints to be handled by POSPD (and OPA),
Human Resources, and Workplace Responsibility should be made explicit, as should
the protocols for referring matters between entities, the timelines set for each entity
to complete an investigation, the types of issues requiring input from higher level
authority in each entity, and the types of information that can be shared between
entities, with the parties involved, and with others. Discussions with representatives
from POSPD/OPA, Human Resources, and Workplace Responsibility that occurred
89 See, e.g., POSPD Departmental Directives 03-2021 (Duty to Intervene and Report
Unreasonable Force) and 04-2021 (Duty to Report External Agency Wrongdoing).
84 356
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
during subcommittee meetings pointed to the need for explicit protocols and interest
was expressed in working towards clarification.
While the focus above is on complaints that come to the attention of the POSPD,
Human Resources, or Workplace Responsibility, there also was discussion earlier
about complaints against POSPD officers received by Customer Services and the need
to establish protocols about referring such complaints to the POSPD. As previously
recommended, it would be useful to set up a working committee involving
representatives from the POSPD, Human Resources, Workplace Responsibility, and
Customer Services to review the issues raised here and to develop a responsive set of
preferred protocols to make the process more transparent and accountable.90
Complaint Intake and Classification
Recommendation No. 26. The complaint classification scheme (inquiry
and minor, moderate. or major complaint) should be revised as it is
unnecessarily technical, the terms used are not consistently well defined,
and use of a methodology to assist in complaint classification will promote
objectivity and consistency.
POSPD classifies complaints alleging policy violations as either a Minor, Moderate,
or Major Complaint. A complaint, even if proven true, that would not establish a
policy violation is called an Inquiry.91 The scheme of categorizing complaints as
Minor, Moderate, or Major appears unnecessarily technical, given the relatively few
complaints handled by the POSPD. If the primary distinction is between relatively
minor complaints that can be handled by a supervisor and those alleging serious
misconduct or involve more complex facts should be investigated by OPA, then a twotiered
approach might be all that is needed.
The definitions used in the classification scheme do not always explain the technical
distinctions intended. For example, note the circular nature of the definition used for
"Minor Complaints":
Complaints involving allegations against department members when
the actions or behavior of the employee constitutes violations of
90 As noted previously, Customer Services provided 21CP with a set of protocols dated July
27, 2021, after the report had been drafted and too late in the assessment process to
evaluate and provide feedback. Regardless, working with other Port components on similar
concerns regarding the handling of complaints would be beneficial.
91 POSPD 1020.3.
85 357
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
department policy that are minor in nature. Discipline resulting from
a sustained finding involving minor complaints will generally not
result in any property loss... (i.e. suspension, demotion, termination,
etc.). Minor complaint allegations may include...[complaints about
courtesy, minor service issues, minor traffic violations], and
complaints of actions committed by a department member deemed to
be minor policy violations."
Defining a "minor complaint" as one that involves a minor policy violation does not
provide helpful guidance to POSPD officers, supervisors, and other staff, or for other
Port employees and public stakeholders, and thus does not serve the goal of
transparency and undercuts accountability.
A complaint classification scheme should be easy to understand and administer and
usually only two or three options what the POSPD calls "inquiry," or low-level
allegations that might not implicate a POSPD policy or are not likely to result in
discipline and more serious allegations involving more complex facts and potential
discipline requiring a formal investigation with procedural safeguards. A third option
could involve referral to another agency, ADR, or some other mode of resolution. It is
not unusual for lower-level complaints to be handled by a supervisor, but they should
be thoroughly documented and reviewed, as is the case for such complaints reviewed
by 21CP.
Given limited resources and competing demands on time, complaints are typically
triaged to ensure that the most serious allegations are prioritized for investigation
and that potentially perishable evidence is collected as early as possible. It is helpful
to set up triaging protocols, such as providing that all complaints involving misuse of
force or biased policing be referred for a formal investigation. The rationale is that, if
shown to have merit, these complaints can have serious consequences for the involved
officer, can negatively impact the community's view of the Department, and elevating
such allegations can communicate respect to the complainant and help build trust in
investigation outcomes.
POSPD policy sets up a complaint intake scheme that provides for different processes
depending on whether a complaint is submitted in writing or made in person or over
the phone. Accountability is served by the requirement that both avenues result in
Blue Team documentation.
86 358
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
POSPD provides that complaints are, at least initially, processed differently
depending on whether they are in writing or oral.92 Written inquiries and complaints
are first forwarded to the administrative specialist of the Chief of Police, who confirms
receipt with the complainant and then refers the matter to OPA for classification and
assignment. In-person or telephoned complaints are forwarded to an on-duty
supervisor for intake, and then the supervisor determines how to classify the
complaint. It appears that the on-duty supervisor either handles or refers to the firstline
supervisor any investigation of complaints deemed to be minor. If a moderate or
major complaint is involved, they are to be referred to "the affected commander" for
review, who then forwards it to OPA for assignment.
While an approach that sets up different processes based on whether a complaint is
made in writing, in-person, or over the telephone presumably encourages thorough
information gathering while a complainant is more immediately available and
provides for up-front feedback to a complainant submitting a written complaint, the
system appears unnecessarily complicated and confusing, given the relatively few
complaints involved. While inquiries and complaints are entered and tracked through
BlueTeam by the OPA Sergeant, a regular review, such as every quarter or
biannually, of intake and classification decisions will help ensure accountability and
consistency in the process.
Recommendation No. 27. When an on-duty supervisor handles
complaint intake and the investigation of an inquiry or minor complaint,
their investigation memo should indicate the rationale behind the
classification decision, the complaint classification should be explicitly
approved by the Commander, and complaint classification decisions should
be regularly audited to check for consistency in application of policy and
other classification guidance.
As noted above, when there is an in-person or telephoned complaint, it is referred to
the Sergeant serving as the on-duty supervisor who determines how to classify the
complaint, after gathering information relevant to the allegations involved. If the
matter is classified as an inquiry or minor complaint and investigated by the on-duty
supervisor or referred to a line supervisor, the rationale behind the classification
decision should be made explicit in the investigation memo that details the complaint,
evidence, analysis, and outcome, and the classification should be considered and
approved during review by the Commander. This will help ensure that supervising
Sergeants and Commanders are using the same classification criteria and allows for
92 1020.4.
87 359
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
learning opportunities and discussion where there might have been a close call about
a classification decision, or the complaint presented issues that might have benefited
from review by OPA or a Commander prior to classification and investigation.
Timelines
Recommendation No. 28. Though there was no evidence of missed
timelines for completing investigations, best practice would be to set
timelines for each step in the process, from complaint intake through a final
disposition, including notice to the named officer and complainant, and the
timelines should be reflected in an updated complaint intake flowchart, and
policy should be clarified as to acceptable reasons for extending timelines,
identify who has authority to grant an extension, and note any limits on the
length of an extension.
POSPD policy states that administrative investigations should not extend over ninety
(90) calendar days, which can be extended if needed, with notice to the subject
employee.93 The policy does not address reasons for extending timelines, does not
identify who has authority to grant an extension, and does not set any limits on the
length of an extension. Department policy does not appear to set other timelines for
completing the various steps involved with complaint intake, investigation, and
disposition, which is a surprising omission. The team was referred to the POSPD
Police Officers' collective bargaining agreement for deadlines related to complaint
processing. Though the 21CP team has by no means assimilated the entire collective
bargaining agreement, the only complaint related timeline evident was a
requirement in Appendix B, Police Officer Bill of Rights, that an employee be notified
within five (5) days if they are subject to an investigation by the Internal
Investigations Section (presumably OPA). Other governing documents may reference
specific timeline requirements such as seen regarding appeals and hearings under
the Police Civil Service Rules.
The subcommittee was provided a copy of the "Complaint Intake Flowchart" used by
the POSPD. The OPA Sergeant acknowledged that it was not up to date, as reference
is made to "Internal Affairs" and there is no Internal Affairs unit or function outside
of OPA. Other issues identified with the flowchart are discussed above, such as the
lack of review of the initial complaint classification and the absence of other quality
control checks during complaint handling. The flowchart should be revised to bring
it up to date, should include all applicable timelines for steps throughout the process,
93 1020.6.4.
88 360
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
and should build in review of decisions made between complaint intake and a final
determination on the allegations made.
Conflicts of Interest
Recommendation No. 29. The POSPD should develop policy that
identifies potential conflicts of interest and protocols to address actual or
perceived conflicts related to misconduct complaint handling and
discipline matters.
Because officers handling police misconduct complaints internally, through an
Internal Affairs Unit or POSPD's Office of Professional Accountability, naturally will
have worked with and have relationships with officers who are named in complaints,
it is easy for real or perceived conflicts of interest to arise. The POSPD policy that
sets out guidelines for reporting and investigating misconduct complaints does not
include a provision addressing such potential conflicts. 21CP was told of one potential
conflict that was elevated for review, but with no policy on point, it might not be
obvious to some how to handle such matters. POSPD does have a policy on Nepotism
and Conflicting Relationships, with the purpose defined as, "to ensure equal
opportunity and effective employment practices by avoiding actual or perceived
favoritism, discrimination, or actual or perceived conflicts of interest by or between
members of this department."94 The policy includes "discipline" among the list of
employment practices that are covered. However, there is no explanation in this
policy or elsewhere concerning the identification of and protocols to address specific
conflict of interest concerns in the complaint handling or discipline processes.
In all departments where sworn members are tasked with investigating complaints
against other members in the same organization, unique issues of perceived or actual
conflict of interest can crop up. Furthermore, since even those who have engaged in
criminal activity should have an avenue to complain about officer misconduct, those
engaged in investigating complaints cannot be swayed by any underlying alleged
criminal behavior by the complainant. The goal is to ensure that everyone involved
in the investigation and review process is capable of being objective, fair, and
unbiased with regards to the subject officer, complainant, witnesses, and issues
raised. Where there are questions of perceived or actual conflict of interest, the policy
should explicitly state the steps to be taken to resolve any concerns.
94 POSPD 1050.1.
89 361
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Recommendation No. 30. The Port should explore alternative dispute
resolution (ADR) options for resolving some complaints, whether or not
they involve the Police Department, as ADR does not appear to be an option
for case processing in the POSPD, Human Resources, or Workplace
Responsibility.
While the number of complaints filed against POSPD officers might not justify the
time and expense of setting up an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) program, if
Human Resources and Workplace Responsibility were interested in offering ADR
options, it would be useful to consider dispute resolution programs that could be
available regardless of where a complaint is lodged or where in the Port organization
the named employee works.
Access to the Police Department and Information on Filing Complaints
Clearly communicating to all stakeholders that the POSPD takes complaints
seriously and offering a user-friendly complaint filing system with regular status
updates to the involved parties provides transparency and will help build trust by
complainants and officers alike that disputes will be handled objectively, thoroughly,
and in a timely manner.
Recommendation No. 31. There are a number of ways to make the
POSPD and complaint filing system more accessible to stakeholders,
including modifying the complaint form, changing the on-line search
system, and identifying police facilities on Sea-Tac airport maps.
The form available on the POSPD webpage refers to "inquiry, commendation,
complaint, suggestions, and area of concern," is unnecessarily specific and
should be limited to "concern or complaint."
The online complaint form should provide directions, including for third party
complaints, information on what to expect for next steps, an overview of the
investigation process, and how a complainant can follow up (i.e., provide a
tracking number or contact information for investigator), along with providing
confirmation once the complaint is received by the Department.
A search for "police complaint" on the Port of Seattle website should take the
searcher directly to the complaint form page.
The location of POSPD headquarters and the substation should be more clearly
identified on Sea-Tac airport maps.
90 362
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
VIII. DIVERSITY IN HIRING AND RECRUITING
A. Motion 2020-15 and the Diversity in Recruitment and Hiring
Subcommittee
Motion 2020-15 provided that the assessment of the POSPD was to include a review
of how potential officers are vetted during the testing and hiring process, including
how an officer's background is reviewed and evaluated as well as how an applicant's
physical, mental, and emotional fitness for the duty is assessed. Building on the
Executive Director's executive action that would "disqualify applicants based on
substantiated instances of excessive use of force or racial discrimination," the motion
provided that the assessment should more clearly define how such instances would
be identified and the types of misconduct that would be prohibited. The assessment
also required assessment the diversity of the POSPD in terms of demographics and
other aspects, such as languages spoken, and identify what additional efforts could
be made to increase diversity in those areas. The assessment was to include areas
such as increased outreach during the recruitment process, internships and youth
training opportunities, community-focused hiring programs or incentives, changes to
the use of lateral postings for frontline officers, hiring panel diversity, and removal
of disqualifications that disproportionately impact people of color. Consistent with
the focus on equity to be applied to this assessment in full, 21CP was asked to
consider in this section impacts on diversity, equity, and civil rights.
B. Diversity in Recruitment and Hiring Subcommittee Members and
Workflow
Subcommittee A Diversity in Recruitment and Hiring
Chairs: Jessica Sullivan & Ericka Singh (Derek Bender)
Name Organization
Derek Bender Port of Seattle, Human Resources
Ericka Singh Port of Seattle, Human Resources
Jessica Sullivan External Subject Matter Expert
Ilays Aden Port of Seattle, Community Relations
Sgt. Darrin Benko Port of Seattle Police Department
Sgt. Molly Kerns Port of Seattle Police Department
Efrain Lopez Port of Seattle, Diversity & Development Council
Luis Navarro Port of Seattle, Office of Equity, Diversity & Inclusion
Bessie Scott External Subject Matter Expert
91 363
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Michelle Woodrow Union Representative (Proxy: LeLand Allen)
The Diversity in Recruitment and Hiring Subcommittee met six times between
February 26 and May 21, 2021. Port of Seattle Human Resources Talent Acquisition
Manager/Co-chair Erika Singh and Talent Acquisition Lead/Substitute Co-chair
Derek Bender were instrumental in gathering information relevant to the work of the
subcommittee, along with Sgt. Molly Kerns and Sgt. Darrin Benko from the POSPD,
who helped provide perspective and context on current recruitment and hiring
practices. Co-chair Jessica Sullivan, a former King County Sheriff's Office Captain
and currently the Director of REI Corporate Security, provided insight on best
practices, along with her knowledge of successful approaches to recruitment and
hiring being used by local law enforcement agencies. Members of the subcommittee
actively participated during meetings, asking questions of the presenters, sharing
observations about the material reviewed, and requesting more information, as
needed. The recommendations below were developed with significant input from the
DRH Subcommittee.
Overview of Recruitment and Hiring of Police Officers Generally and at the
Port of Seattle Police Department
A survey of 411 police departments conducted by the Police Executive Research
Forum (PERF) found that 63% experienced a reduction in the number of applicants
in 2019.95 Police recruitment continues to be challenging in 2021 after a year of
widespread racial justice protests and calls for police reform, along with a much
higher than usual rate of retirements and resignations that some attribute to officers'
low morale.96 Applicant shortages are occurring in departments of all sizes and all
regions of the country. At the same time, agencies are working to meet their goals of
building a workforce that reflects the diversity of the communities they serve.
However, recruitment for applicants of color face additional challenges, including a
long history of discrimination in the profession, high levels of mistrust of the police
in underrepresented communities, lack of awareness of career opportunities in law
enforcement, and difficulties in passing background and credit checks.97 "Whereas
departments have had historical difficulties recruiting women and minority
95 Police Executive Research Forum.2019. "The Workforce Crisis and What Police Agencies
Are Doing About It." Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.
96 See, e.g., https://www.axios.com/police-morale-suffers-recruiting-down-fb25f81e-b423-
41fe-9d5f-242d43ebf337.html and https://www.npr.org/2021/06/24/1009578809/cops-say-lowmorale-and-department-scrutiny-are-driving-them-away-from-the-job
97 CCJ Task Force on Policing, "Recruitment, Diversity, and Retention," Policy Assessment,
May 2021 (citations omitted).
92 364
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
applicants, their inability to grapple with generational differences has shown the
profession to be underprepared for the rapidly changing and uncertain economic and
social landscape."98
There are relatively few rigorous studies on effective recruitment strategies. The
studies done have focused on making it easier to apply or making the position more
attractive to desired candidates, such as sending reminder emails and texts and
postcards with messages about "being up for the challenge" of serving and
emphasizing career opportunities in the profession.99 A recent guidebook out of the
U.S. Department of Justice COPS Office provides a useful overview of existing
resources for promoting workforce diversity, intended to "highlight publications that
are unique, particularly insightful, or considered foundational."100
Against this backdrop, the Diversity in Recruitment and Hiring (DRH) Subcommittee
considered POSPD's approach to hiring new officers, recruitment strategies, and data
available to assess where minority and female candidates fall out during the
application process. Port of Seattle Police officers are hired through three pathways
as an entry officer, lateral officer, or internal entry officer with overlapping and
distinct steps in the application and testing process for each. Officers hired from all
three pathways must meet the minimum requirements of being at least 21 years of
age, a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident with the ability to read and write
in the English language, hold a high school diploma or GED certificate, have or obtain
a WA State driver's license prior to hire, and successfully pass a background
investigation that includes a complete criminal records check, a polygraph
examination, a medical examination, and a psychological examination. Also,
regardless of the pathway used in applying to the Port Police Department, there are
factors that will automatically disqualify an applicant, including:
Drug use prohibitions
Criminal activity, including any adult felony conviction, conviction of any
offense classified as a felony under WA State law while employed in any
capacity at a law enforcement agency, admission of having committed any act
98 Jeremy M. Wilson, "Strategies for Police Recruitment: A Review of Trends, Contemporary
Issues, and Existing Approaches," Law Enforcement Executive Forum, 2014, 14(1), p. 79.
99 Id.
100 Recruitment and Retention for Workforce Diversity Resource Guidebook 2021; CRI-TAC
Spotlight, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services;
https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/Publications/cops-w0962-pub.pdf
93 365
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
amounting to a felony under WA State law, as an adult, within five years prior
to application or while employed as a peace officer (including military police
officers), any conviction under a domestic violence statute, and unlawful sexual
misconduct
Certain driving related offenses
Employment related experiences including dishonorable discharge from armed
forces, lying during any stage of the hiring process, falsification of application
or related forms, previous revocation or denial of any certified status, any
substantiated finding of the use of excessive force or a substantiated finding of
racial discrimination or corrupt acts against another employee or member of
the public.
Additionally, financial issues, such as poor credit history, including excessive credit
card debt or unresolved accounts in collections, are thoroughly assessed and may be
grounds for disqualification.101 Applicants are required to sign a waiver allowing
backgrounders to see applicants' personnel files, misconduct investigations, and all
other relevant documents. Information regarding minimum requirements and
automatic disqualifiers are posted on the Port Police Careers webpage.102
For those who meet the minimum qualifications and are not automatically
disqualified based on the factors noted above, the application process is dependent on
the hiring pathway being followed. Though the Port is currently using a strategy
focused on hiring experienced officers applying through the lateral pathway and is
not accepting applications for entry-level officers, the subcommittee reviewed the
steps involved for each of the hiring pathways. Entry-level applicants must pass
written and physical ability tests administered by Public Safety Testing and an oral
board interview to then be merged onto a Civil Service Eligibility list, with the highest
candidates moving to background investigations if there are entry-level officer
openings. Lateral applicants must pass a physical ability test administered by the
Exercise Science Center. After passing the physical fitness examination, a lateral
101 Under E2SSB 5051, as a condition of continued employment, peace officers must obtain
and maintain CJTC certification, which includes release of their personnel files, termination
papers, criminal investigation files, and other material. The new legislation sets out the
grounds for certification denial or revocation, which includes factors not currently listed as
disqualifying by the Port Police Department, though might have had a disqualifying impact
as more information about an applicant was discovered during the background check and
otherwise. The legislation also sets out additional backgrounding requirements that must be
complied with.
102 https://www.portseattle.org/page/port-seattle-police-department-careers
94 366
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
candidate must complete a written exercise and an oral board interview, followed by
the background investigation, polygraph examination, potentially be interviewed by
the Chief of Police, and must pass psychological and physical exams. Finally, the
internal entry-level pathway is open exclusively to Port of Seattle employees who
must follow the steps outlined for entry-level applicants, though the physical ability
test is administered by Port staff. Concerns about some aspects of the application
process are reflected in the recommendations below.
POSPD Employee Demographics
Note that the information provided on POSPD employee demographics was sourced
from different data sets compiled at different points in time, and thus, the total
number of employees or number within a subgroup may differ between charts and
tables.
2020 Affirmative Action Utilization & Availability Chart
POSPD Commissioned Employees
EEO JOB TOTAL FEMALE MINORITY
GROUP
Utilization Avail.103 D Utilization Avail. D
104
Commissioned 89 1 12.35 1 15.96 -3 14 15.73 18 20. -
Police 1 4 11 4
Commissioned 26 4 15.38 3 13.20 + 7 26.92 4 16. +
Police - 1 34 3
Command
103 Availability is an aggregation of external candidates with requisite skills and internal
employees who can move between jobs.
104 D = Difference between Utilization and Availability
95 367
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Gender Identification for Commissioned/Non-Commissioned Employees
Job Group Description Gender # %105
Commissioned Police Command106 Male 19 79%
Commissioned Police Command Female 5 21%
Commissioned Police Male 79 90%
Commissioned Police Female 9 10%
Total Commissioned Police - Male 98 88%
Total Commissioned Police - Female 14 12%
Non-Commissioned Protected Services Male 3 14%
Non-Commissioned Protected Services Female 19 86%
Race/Ethnicity Identification for Commissioned Employees
Job Group Race/Ethnicity # %
Description
Commissioned Police American Indian/Alaska 0 0%
Command Native
Asian 2 8%
Black/African American 2 8%
Hispanic/Latino 0 0%
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific 0 0%
Islander
Two or More Races 1 4%
White 17 71%
Unknown 2 8%
Commissioned Police - American Indian/Alaska 1 1%
Officers Native
Asian 4 5%
Black/African American 3 3%
Hispanic/Latino 1 1%
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific 2 2%
Islander
105 Percentages rounded off.
106 Commissioned Police Command includes Sergeants
96 368
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Two or More Races 5 6%
White 51 58%
Unknown 21 24%
Commissioned Command Demographics
Gender Ethnicity
90 80
70
80 60
50
70
40
60 30
20
50 10
0
40
30 Asian White Blank
20 Hispanic/Latino Two or More Races
10 American Indian/Alaska Native Black/African American Native Hawaiian/Oth Pac Island 0
Male Female Percentage
9
Commissioned Patrol Demographics
Gender Ethnicity
100 70
60
90
50
80
40
70 30
20
60
10
50
0
40 Asian White Blank
30
20 Hispanic/Latino Two or More Races
10 Black/African American
0 American Indian/Alaska Native Native Hawaiian/Oth Pac Island
Male Female Percentage
10
97 369
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Demographics for POSPD Hired 2018 2020
Of a total of 35 POSPD officers hired during the years 2018 - 2020, 80% (28) were
lateral and 20% (7) were entry-level. In addition to three officers hired from the
Honolulu Police Department and one from the Washington State Patrol, lateral hires
represented police agencies in the following Washington State cities:
Seattle (10)
Tukwila (4)
Gig Harbor (2)
Auburn (1)
Federal Way (1)
Issaquah (1)
Kent (1)
Mercer Island (1)
Pacific (1)
Redmond (1)
Renton (1)
Entry vs Lateral Hires
Ethnicity
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
African American / American Indian / Asian Hispanic / Latino Hawaiian or Pacific White / Caucasian Two or more races Unknown
Black Alaskan Native Islander
2018 Entry 2018 Lateral 2019 Entry 2019 Lateral 2020 Entry 2020 Lateral
7
Of the 35 officers hired since 2018, 23 laterals were male, 5 laterals were female, and
all seven entry-level hires were male.
98 370
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Demographic information for lateral and entry-level applicants was provided by the
Port's Human Resources Office and an effort made to analyze the application process
to better understand the points at which women and minorities fell out. However,
due to subcommittee time constraints and data that was not immediately available,
it was difficult to reach insights on this front.
The Department has relied heavily on lateral hires the past few years because
laterals can be assessed on their actual performance as police officers, it is less
expensive to on-board lateral hires (estimated as $55,816.40, as compared to the
$87,717.80 estimated cost of entry level hires), and, because lateral hires do not need
to repeat academy training they have previously completed, they are available for
patrol assignment much more quickly. An entry-level officer typically requires 45
weeks of training before handling calls solo (six weeks of pre-academy training, 18
weeks for the academy, six weeks post-academy, and 15 weeks of field training) as
compared to a lateral officer who on average needs 18 weeks of training before being
assigned to patrol (six weeks of pre-field training and 12 weeks of field training).
C. Diversity in Recruitment and Hiring Recommendations
Recommendations relating to Data Collection, Demographics and Self-
Identification
While representatives from the Port's Office of Human Resources and Police
Department provided information summarizing a range of data points relevant to
consideration of officer recruitment and hiring trends at the POSPD, there were
limitations to the information immediately available using internal and external data
sources. For example, with entry-level hires, the Port must rely on Public Safety
Testing's willingness and availability to provide certain categories of data that would
be useful in analyzing the pass/fail data points for these candidates. For different
types of analyses, the Port uses different benchmarks, which may look to the entire
population of an area or specifically to the population of qualified law enforcement
applicants.
A significant proportion of POSPD commissioned officers do not self-identify when
asked about their race/ethnicity affiliation. While this information is usually provided
during the application phase, once hired, 20-25% of officers do not provide
racial/ethnic information in the personnel system. This reluctance to self-identify is
found Port-wide at similar levels and severely limits analysis of trends in recruitment
and hiring from the perspective of meeting race/ethnic hiring goals.
99 371
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Recommendation No. 32. The Port should coordinate with the Police
Department, Human Resources, and other Port components to consolidate
data sources with the goal of developing a robust data collection and
analytic approach to better understand the recruitment and hiring of Police
Department personnel, including at which stage women and/or applicants
of diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds have high fail rates, and identify
opportunities for improvement.
Individuals from the Port's Human Resources Office and the POSPD provided an
abundance of information on the recruitment and hiring process for police officers.
When the DRH Subcommittee asked for even more data, they worked internally and
with IT and external sources to pull as much information as possible in a short
amount of time. While more analysis would be useful, as discussed below, it is
important that data sources be consolidated or coordinated to allow for a robust data
set and more sophisticated data analytics. The subcommittee was told that efforts are
being made towards this end.
Recommendation No. 33. The Port should develop clear guidance on the
benchmarks to be used in assessing the availability and utilization of
persons identifying with different ethnic and racial groups, including the
rationale for using census data from specific areas.
In analyzing POSPD recruitment and hiring data, the EEO job groupings used for
federal affirmative action reporting purposes grouped commissioned employees into
either commanders or officers, with sergeants included with commanders. As the role
of sergeants who supervise falls between command staff and officers and differs
significantly from a commander's role, it is confusing to include them with
commanders and it's important to consider the demographics of supervisors as a
separate group.
Affirmative action utilization and availability information also did not always clearly
identify the benchmarks being used, which can impact outcomes. For example, in
considering the availability and utilization of African American/Blacks, looking to
African American/Black police officer applicants for the POSPD verses the percentage
of applicants in the Pacific Northwest or as compared to King County or Washington
State census data yields different results, though the percentage of African
American/Black police officer applicants seeking a position at the POSPD is higher
than all three other metrics. In considering Hispanic/Latino applicants, the
percentage of Hispanic/Latino officers applying to the POSPD is less than half of the
average percentage of the three comparators, indicating that the Port is having
100 372
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
difficulty attracting Hispanic/Latino police officer applicants. The impact is reflected
in the race/ethnic identification data presented above, showing only one POSPD office
identifies as Hispanic/Latino, with the significance of the gap dependent on the
specific benchmark used.
Police Officer Applicants January 2019 July 2020107
Pacific Port of King State of
Northwest Seattle County Washington
Police Police 2019 US 2019 US
Applicants Applicants Census Census
1/1/2020 to 1/1/2019 to
2/28/2021 7/16/2020
African
American/Black 6.2% 10.6% 7.0% 4.4%
Hispanic/Latino 10.8% 5.4% 9.9% 13.0%
Clearly identifying benchmarks is vital for setting recruitment and hiring goals and
for measuring the Port's success rate in meeting those goals.
Recommendation No. 34. The Port should explore the reasoning behind
the significant percentage (20-25%) of employees who do not report their
race/ethnicity and consider the impact of this missing demographic
information on employee demographic data analysis for identifying and
addressing any disparities in hiring and other employment opportunities.
During subcommittee discussions, many assumed that POSPD employees who do not
report their race/ethnicity are likely White and fear identifying their race will impact
their employment opportunities in the face of diversity goals. It is also possible that
some believe that since race is a social construct, it is not productive to perpetuate
the idea that any distinction is meaningful.108 Staff from Human Resources suggested
that it is simply an oversight made by employees who are asked to complete a variety
of forms when initially hired, including those asking for race/ethnicity data, and that
employees have no incentive to correct or complete the information when Port-wide
107 This data was taken from a Public Safety Testing chart dated April 8, 2021, that was
included in a slide deck presented to the subcommittee titled, "Recruiting and Hiring Data,
Pt. 2, Police Task Force Subcommittee, 5/7/2021. The full chart includes similar comparison
points for other race/ethnic groups and for females.
108 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/
101 373
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
or department-wide requests are made to update personnel files. Whatever the
explanation for the high rate of employees who do not identify their race/ethnicity,
the lack of complete data makes it very difficult to assess the POSPD's diversity
progress.
Recommendation No. 35. The Port and Police Department should
consider using non-binary gender designations.
Given the increasing numbers of individuals identifying as non-binary or genderfluid
, it is important to consider the limitations inherent in only using binary gender
identification options when collecting demographic information from applicants and
employees and should consider how to incorporate non-binary gender options into all
practices and systems.109
Advertising and Recruitment
As was noted during the work of this subcommittee, it is important to separate out
advertising from recruitment, as the latter requires a more strategic approach. The
Port advertises police officer hiring opportunities through a variety of means,
including:
LinkedIn
Indeed
PoliceOne
National Association of Black Law Enforcement Officers (NOBLE)
Multiple Diversity/Military outlets
The Port is instituting a new system to more readily analyze which advertising sites
lead individuals to apply to the POSPD and, of those sites, which are most productive.
Information from the system will be useful in considering whether which advertising
avenues should continue to be used and where new audiences should be sought.
109 In June 2021, Attorney Generals from 20 states, including Washington, joined together to
urge the FBI to create the gender category of "X" for nonbinary individuals in the Uniform
Crime Reporting system, which is used to study, analyze, and react to crime. See, e.g.,
https://www.nj.com/politics/2021/06/nj-asks-fbi-to-add-x-gender-to-represent-nonbinaryresidents-in-crime-stats.html.
Also, the American Medical Association now recommends
removing sex labels entirely from birth certificates, as explained in this Opinion piece in the
Seattle Times. https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/listen-to-the-ama-and-remove-sexlabels-from-birth-certificates-in-washington-state
/
102 374
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
As for recruitment efforts, the POSPD developed a series of thoughtful, engaging
recruitment videos that are posted on its Port Police Careers webpage, featuring
officers of different genders and ethnic/racial backgrounds talking about why they
came to the POSPD and ways in which police work at the Port is unique. The videos
are diverse and engaging and seem to be a useful tool for visitors to the website and
in reaching out to various community and professional groups.
Recommendations Related to Advertising and Recruitment
Recommendation No. 36. Develop a recruitment plan aimed at
increasing the number of Hispanic/Latino individuals applying to be a
police officer at the POSPD.
The Port is acquiring a software program that will allow it to more closely analyze
where applicants learn about POSPD police officer hiring opportunities, to maximize
advertising approaches that yield the best outcomes and to identify where efforts
might need to be increased. While more robust data and clear benchmarks are
needed, as discussed above, information that is available shows that the number of
Hispanic/Latino police officer applicants and hires at the POSPD falls well below
what is expected. A recruitment plan aimed at increasing the number of
Hispanic/Latino individuals applying to the POSPD is recommended. One step to
consider towards this end is to consult with the Port's Hispanic/Latino Employee
Resource Group for input on effective ways to reach out to the broader
Hispanic/Latino community. It also might be helpful to evaluate whether to seek
funding for advertising with the National Latino Peace Officers Association and
similar groups.110
An idea suggested by a subcommittee member for increasing interest in policing,
particularly among Hispanics/Latinos and those who are bilingual, was to advertise
openings inside the airport at baggage claim and other places where international
travelers, some of whom are bilingual, will be exposed to the information and might
110 While there are problems with the data related to the number of female applicants and
hires that make it difficult to determine if the POSPD meets expectations regarding
employment of female officers, advertising through the National Association of Women in
Law Enforcement and similar law enforcement and non-law enforcement organizations
might be useful.
103 375
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
develop an interest in pursuing a policing career, such as baggage carousels for flights
arriving from Mexico City. It was also suggested that information be sought from
current Hispanic/Latino officers to better understand their interest in the POSPD for
use in recruiting others.
Recommendation No. 37. Consider a variety of recruitment suggestions
made by the Diversity in Recruitment and Hiring Subcommittee to gather
information and to reach out to youth and other communities to garner
interest in policing and in the POSPD.
The DRH Subcommittee offered a variety of suggestions aimed at learning more
about what attracts individuals to want to work as a police officer at the POSPD and
to garner interest in policing and the POSPD among youth and other community
groups. These suggestions include:
Seek more information from current lateral hires to determine if there is a
typical point in their career they sought to transfer and whether that informs
how the Port approaches recruitment and hires with this demographic.
Consider encouraging POSPD Officers representing diversity in the
Department to spend time serving as ambassadors to minority communities,
to develop relationships and interest in law enforcement.
Use internships at the POSPD to encourage youth interest in law enforcement
generally and the POSPD in particular.
Collaborate with other law enforcement agencies throughout Washington to
develop strategies for encouraging youth to pursue a career in policing, such
as bringing together difference groups of current and former Latino, African
American, and female Chiefs of Police to record them talking about their
backgrounds and journey into policing for televised programs to be aired in
select communities. Look for financial support for the project from
organizations such as the Latino Civic Alliance, which might be particularly
interested if other police departments experience a low rate of applications
from Hispanic/Latino like that seen at the POSPD.
Explore the idea of identifying "Community Ambassadors" who can work in
communities to help identify people with an interest in law enforcement
careers, educate them about preparation and opportunities, and facilitate
104 376
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
connections with the POSPD, the Washington State Criminal Justice Training
Commission, and similar resources.
A final recommendation included in the list of recruitment suggestions was to explore
a collaboration with police departments in other communities to partner on
Community Policing Academies and Explorer Programs, reducing time and resources
required by any one agency. DRH Subcommittee Co-chair Jessica Sullivan was in
touch with the Burien Police Department Chief while this idea was being discussed
in the subcommittee and the Chief was open to the idea of collaborating.
Female Entry-Level and Lateral Applicants
Recommendation No. 38. Follow-up with Public Safety Testing to
explore why female applicants to the Port of Seattle Police Department fail
the written test at a higher level than male applicants and whether the Port
is receiving all data analytics needed to assess applicant and hiring patterns
and give follow-up consideration as to why there have been no female entrylevel
hires in the past three years.
As part of the application process, entry-level applicants are required to take a
written test administered by Public Safety Testing (PST), which is not required of
lateral applicants. Females fail the written test at a higher rate than males; for
example, in 2019, the failure rate on the written test for female applicants was 7%,
as compared to 5% for males. While 26% of entry-level POSPD applicants failed the
physical test administered by PST, only 9.1% (all male) of lateral applicants failed
the physical test administered by the Exercise Science Center (ESC) since 2018. The
different pass rates could be a function of the type of physical test involved in each
setting, or a reflection of the fact that at least in-state lateral candidates must have
already completed the PST test to have been certified to work as an officer in
Washington State. Since no female lateral candidates failed the ESC physical test,
the test eliminated disparate impact for females, an important equity consideration.
Also, the pool of female lateral applicants was slightly larger than that for entry-level
female applicants 14.9% lateral versus 12.2% entry-level. However, because data
on failure rates by gender available through PST was limited, it is not clear why
POSPD has not hired any female entry-level applicants in the past three years.
Oral Boards
Oral board interviews are required of all officer applicants. Entry-level applicants are
called in order (top down) of their written scores. Lateral candidates are contacted to
105 377
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
participate in an oral board in the order of completion of all pre-oral board
requirements. All Internal Entry-level applicants are interviewed if qualified and
pass the physical agility test. Oral board questions differ for lateral versus entry-level
applicants, with a copy of each set of questions provided to the DRH Subcommittee.
While it was beyond the subcommittee's capacity to review all the questions used,
and confidentiality requirements prohibit any detailed discussion of the questions,
some observations were made as noted below.
Recommendations Related to Oral Boards
Recommendation No. 39. Increase the number of civilians, pulling from
diverse employee groups such as Employee Resource Groups (ERGs), to be
trained and available to serve on oral boards, so that they can rotate in
when available to assist with this step of the hiring process and consider
ways to assess whether the training provided to minimize the impact of
implicit bias has positive impacts.
Each oral board is made up of a diverse group of individuals, with a goal to have a
demographic mix in terms of gender and race, along with a mix of commissioned and
noncommissioned employees, and civilians outside of the POSPD. There was a sense
among some that there are a handful of oral board regulars, those who are more likely
to be available to assist when needed. However, the subcommittee did not analyze
oral boards over time to determine the demographics of those who served. Without a
basis for determining if there's an issue with the make-up of oral boards, it is
nonetheless advantageous to consider ways to expand the number and diversity of
individuals in the pool used to appoint oral boards and to develop a strategy for
assessing oral board participation in the future.
Recommendation No. 40. Review oral board questions to determine if
they are eliciting responses that address the subject area behind each
question, such as assessing character, and consider whether the oral board
should include questions directly asking applicants about involvement in
extremist groups111, about an encounter with someone of a different race,
sexual orientation, etc., whether they have ever been the subject of
discrimination themselves, or the community groups they belong to.
As previously noted, it was beyond the capacity of the DRH Subcommittee to conduct
an in-depth analysis of oral board questions. However, a review of the questions and
responses in light of the underlying value at issue would be worthwhile. Also, POSPD
111 E2SHB 5051 now requires inquiry into involvement in extremist organizations as part of the backgrounding
process.
106 378
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
should consider adding or substituting more direct questions to explore an
interviewee's biases.
Recommendation No. 41. Consider whether some limited follow-up
questions by oral board members should be permitted.
While it is understandable that Human Resources wants to ensure the integrity of
the oral board process by prohibiting any deviation, there is potential for
miscommunication or misunderstanding when no follow-up questions are permitted.
The Port should consider whether vital information might be lost in the process and
if there are ways to allow for limited follow-up without sacrificing standardization in
the process.
Equity Issues
As the DRH Subcommittee used an equity lens in assessing recruitment and hiring
efforts for the POSPD, ideas intended to enhance equity are incorporated throughout
these recommendations. However, a few suggestions were aimed very specifically at
enhancing police equity in recruitment and hiring.
For example, because the background check includes a review of economic factors,
there was a concern that some economically disadvantaged applicants would be
excluded, despite the fact that they might not impose an integrity risk if hired. The
subcommittee was assured that where it is apparent that an applicant fell into
financial difficulty but is working to pull out of the situation, that experience alone
would not exclude them from consideration.
Recommendation No. 42. Bring representatives of all ERGs into the
recruitment and hiring process at all steps, not just for oral boards, so that
a variety of perspectives and ideas are shared with the Police Department
and the Port throughout the process.
Recommendation No. 43. While points can be added to an applicant's
score if they speak a second language, consider a pay incentive or hiring
preference for the ability to speak more than one language, encouraging
multilingualism for applicants and current employees.112
112 Given the wide range of languages spoken by people traveling through SeaTac, having
officers who can speak more than one language serves the Port's broader interests in being
able to respond to customer needs.
107 379
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Finally, a suggestion to make POSPD demographics more transparent by regularly
reporting the information to the Commission was realized in the POSPD Annual
Report for 2020, which included demographics and presumably will continue to
include such information, and which was presented to the Commission and is
available on the POSPD web page.
IX. TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT
A. Motion 2020-15 and the Diversity in Recruitment and Hiring
Subcommittee
Motion 2020-15 stated that the assessment should include a comprehensive review of
the police training curriculum, including whether existing training promotes a
"guardian mentality" approach to policing as well as what training is provided to
officers as alternative or intermediate approaches to avoid excessive use of force. In
addition, the assessment should review whether officers are developed and advanced
throughout the organization in a way that ensures equitable outcomes for officers of
color; the assessment should identify whether barriers to advancement exist for
officers of color and recommend ways to overcome those barriers. The assessment
should also review current community engagement activities by the Port of Seattle
Police Department in communities of color and economically distressed zip codes.
B. Training and Development Subcommittee Members and Workflow
Subcommittee B Training and Development
Chairs: Deborah Jacobs & Tracy Patterson
Name Organization
Tracy Patterson Port of Seattle, Human Resources
Deborah Jacobs External Subject Matter Expert
Milton Ellis Port of Seattle, Labor/Represented Employees
Detective Steve Ivey Port of Seattle Police Department
Anika Klix Port of Seattle, Diversity and Development Council
Port of Seattle, Aviation division; Rep of Blacks in
Patricia Ly
Government
Sgt. Bram Urbauer Port of Seattle Police Department
Shaunie Wheeler Union Representative
108 380
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Port of Seattle, Maritime division; Rep of Blacks in
Jo Woods
Government
Jerrell Wills External Subject Matter Expert
Neil Woodruff External Subject Matter Expert
Janice Zahn Port of Seattle, Priority Hire
The Training and Development Subcommittee met three times in the Spring. The
subcommittee primarily examined training including, but not limited to, use of
force, de-escalation, crisis intervention, and professional development, including
barriers to advancement for people of color. All aspects of this assessment were
viewed through an equity lens.
Training
The Co-Chairs of the Training and Development subcommittee joined 21CP in
attending the 2021 use of force training for POSPD. Additionally, 21CP attended the
2020 de-escalation training and legal in-service updates, including 40mm Less
Lethal, Taser, ground control, and search and seizure training.
The subcommittee began with an explanation of the current training program by the
POSPD. The Training Section includes a commander, a sergeant, and an officer. They
are responsible for all in-service training. Due to the demands of the cruise ship
season and redeployment of resources, the POSPD training year is October April,
which limits the available months to deliver trainings to the department.
The State of Washington, through the Criminal Justice Training Commission (CJTC),
requires 24 hours of annual in-service training for every officer; the POSPD union
contract sets a minimum of 40 hours. In reality, training hours are over 60 for most
officers and specialty units have even more.
New recruits receive the 720-hour Basic Law Enforcement Academy (BLEA) through
CJTC. The Port provides a pre-BLEA (a mini-police academy) to "set them up for
success." Following BLEA, the Port has another six weeks of training before the
Patrol Training Officer (PTO) program. Members of the subcommittee discussed the
primary distinctions between Field Training Officer (FTO) programs (focused on
checking off practical skills) as opposed to PTO programs (which are problem-solving
based, and train more thoughtful approaches to policing). As noted in the Final
Report of President Obama's Task Force on 21st Century Policing, the "Reno Model,"
developed in collaboration with the United States Department of Justice's
109 381
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Community Oriented Policing Services ("COPS") Office and the Police Executive
Research Forum ("PERF"), "use[s] adult learning theory and problem solving tools to
encourage new officers to think with a proactive mindset, enabling the identification
of and solution to problems within their communities."113 The Reno Model established
the foundation of the PTO model114.
Lateral hires (from other agencies) receive 13 weeks of training.
The POSPD developed a five-year training plan and maintains training files to ensure
the department knows what has been trained and who has received the training.
113 Final Report of the President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing 60 (2015).
114 Hoover Group of Reno, History of Field Training (Reno Model PTO Program) (2006); see
also Community Oriented Policing Services, United States Department of Justice, A
Problem-Based Learning Manual for Training and Evaluating Police Trainees,
https://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Free_Online_Documents/FTO/trainee%20manual.p
df (last accessed Mar. 2, 2021)
110 382
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Five Year Training Plan
111 383
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
The overall training is driven by state law, the administrative code, and policy.
Additionally, the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies
(CALEA) training requirements prioritize training delivery in order to meet the
accreditation standards. The following courses are mandated by the CALEA
certification process:
CALEA training requirements:
o 1.1.2 Code of Ethics
o 1.2.9 Bias Policing
o 4.1.2 Use of Deadly Force
o 4.3.3: Annual/Biennial Proficiency Training
o 33.1.5: Remedial Training
o 33.1.6: Employee Training Record Maintenance
o 33.4.1: Recruit Training Required
o 33.4.2: Recruit Training Program
o 33.4.3: Field Training Program
o 33.5.1: Annual In-Service Training Program
o 33.5.3: Accreditation Training
o 33.6.2: Tactical Team Training Program
o 33.8.2: Skill Development Training Upon Promotion
o 41.2.2: Pursuit of Motor Vehicles
o 41.2.7: Mental Health Issues
o 46.1.9: All Hazards Plan Training
o 46.3.2: Hazardous Awareness Training
o 71.2.1: Training of Personnel
o 72.1.1: Training User Personnel
The State mandates eight hours of crisis intervention training for officers but offers
a 40-hour certification. Approximately 50% of officers have had the 40-hour course;
only four have not received the eight-hour course, but they are slated for training
according to POSPD.
Development
The subcommittee also received POSPD briefings about the evaluation system at
POSPD and opportunities for development. Evaluation forms (WPR or work
performance review) are completed by supervisors and are approved up the chain of
command. Supervisors also have access to a data dashboard of officer activity, which
is viewable by officer or squad.
112 384
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Promotional processes, like the hiring processes, occur in partnership with Public
Safety Testing. The third-party vendor mechanisms are supposed to help prevent bias
in promotions. The overall promotional process at POSPD was described by Port HR
as "the most focused of any Port promotional process." The design stage for a
promotional exam includes surveying the people doing the work and collecting the
competencies they believe are most valuable. Some of the previously identified
competencies include oral communication, written, interpersonal insight, problem
solving, judgment, planning and organizing, delegation/sphere of control. This design
attempts to control for trends and influences and consciously attempts to avoid
creating a process that puts a disadvantage on officers that have never been in a
leadership role.
The design is then assessed by a committee of managers (civilian airport duty,
emergency preparedness facility manager) and numerous external law enforcement
professionals in an effort to reduce bias and the influence of established relationships
in assessment process.
Some subcommittee members noted that under the current civil service rules, the
Chief has a lot of leeway in final decisions. Additionally, the subcommittee discussed
that if the test questions are drawn from current institution, there is potential to
simply perpetuate the current thought system.
POSPD reported that the WPR is the most important promotional element, as current
department leadership philosophy is to promote not solely the best test takers, but
rather balance the test day with performance evaluations over the last few years.
Engagement with Communities of Color
The subcommittee discussed the value of community outreach as part of training in
order for officers to find out about the people they serve. While POSPD currently does
annual night out events (particularly at Shilshole Marina), coffee with a cop, and
have engagements with the Puget Sound Center and in high schools, there are no
community engagement programs identified that directly connect officers with
communities of color.
113 385
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
C. Training and Development Subcommittee Recommendations
Recommendation No. 44. The POSPD should consider ranking
applicants for Special Team assignments to increase transparency in those
processes.
As discussed elsewhere, 21CP consistently heard concerns about the fairness of
assignments to specialty units, such as K9, SWAT, Hostage negotiation, Dive Team,
Boat Team, PTO, Bomb Disposal, Honor Guard, Peer Support, and the Crowd
Management Unit. The current process involves testing, but applicants are not
ranked by test scores. Instead, applicants qualify for the unit based on their testing
and the Chief or head of the relevant unit select the people they want for the unit.
While Command Staff reports that in actuality, people are selected by test score in
almost every case, the inherent discretion in choosing from a pool creates the
perception of inequities.
Additionally, while 21CP was not provided any data about who has applied for Special
Teams in the past and not selected, the end demographics of Special Teams raise
concerns. SWAT is all white, and all male.115 The Boat Team and Dive Team are all
white and male. The Bomb Disposal Unit and PTO include one female each but are
all white. K9 includes one female, two Asian, and one African American officer.
Hostage Negotiation includes one female officer, one Asian, and one Pacific Islander.
Honor Guard is all white, but evenly split between men and women. Peer Support
has two females and one Pacific Islander. Finally, the Crowd Management Unit, with
20 officers, is all male and has one Asian and one American Indian officer. The lack
of apparent diversity in these teams can only reinforce skepticism about the fairness
of the process, especially as applied to race. Because special assignments, depending
on type, are either considered permanent or can be extended where a time limitation
is set, many perceive this as further limiting participation opportunities. Again, 21CP
does not have a way of determining whether the process has been fair, but the
perception of unfairness alone is problematic.116
115 Recent budget decisions resulted in the one female SWAT officer being removed; the
department hopes to reinstate her when budgets allow.
116 To the extent testing emphasizes work experience and knowledge, the POSPD might
consider emphasizing skill sets and ability to learn instead. This can help level the playing
field and increase diversity. See, e.g., https://hbr.org/2021/06/you-need-a-skills-basedapproach-to-hiring-and-developing-talent
116 Melissa Bradley, Katherine Holihen, and Charlene Moe. Procedural Justice. Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services. (2015).
114 386
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Given these perceptions of inequity expressed by commissioned personnel from
different corners of the POSPD, it is important that leadership create the conditions
necessary to build a sense of internal procedural justice. "[P]rocedural justice
implementation must begin with an internal structural commitment from executive
leadership and an understanding among supervisors who carry out processes,
policies, and procedures within the department."117 Procedural justice "speaks to four
principles, often referred to as the four pillars: fairness in the processes, transparency
in actions, opportunities for voice, and impartiality in decision making."118 POSPD
leadership can build a sense of internal procedural justice as they "demonstrate that
assignments, training, promotions and discipline are fairly awarded based on merit,
qualifications and need"119 Operating primarily from a relational leadership
approach that fosters and facilitates relationships up and down and across the
Department, POSPD leadership can enhance internal procedural justice with a focus
on developing collaborative decision-making, team-building, employee inclusivity and
empowerment, transparency, and effective internal communication. As the
Department considers implementation of this recommendation (and others),
involving POSPD members in the process to better understand their concerns and
get input on setting priorities and problem solving, such as with alternative
approaches for Special Teams assignments, will itself demonstrate a commitment to
procedural justice.120
Recommendation No. 45. The POSPD should continue to train deescalation
as a core engagement philosophy.
As the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) has observed, "[t]he term
de-escalation can be viewed as both an overarching philosophy that encourages
officers to constantly reassess each situation to determine what options are available
to effectively respond, as well as the grouping of techniques designed to achieve this
117 Melissa Bradley, Katherine Holihen, and Charlene Moe. Procedural Justice. Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services. (2015).
118 Id.
119 Brian N. O'Donnell. How Internal Procedural Justice Impacts External Behaviors: The
Implications Officer Perception of Leadership and Leadership Behaviors Have for
Organizational Culture. Police 1 (2021), citing M. Kool and D. Van Dierendonck. Servant
Leadership and Commitment to Change, the Mediating Role of Justice and Optimism.
Journal of Organizational Change Management (2012), 25(3), 422-433.
120 Note that the Accelerating Reform: Transforming Police Culture training that some
POSPD members have attended ties procedural justice concepts into its leadership training.
If other POSPD members will be attending the training, a capstone project focused on
building internal procedural justice might provide further structure for moving forward on
this recommendation.
115 387
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
goal."121 Generally, de-escalation and de-escalation philosophy is well-integrated into
POSPD trainings.
The core principles of time (pace), distance, shielding, and communication resurfaced
in all use of force related trainings. The department trains that "De-escalation
requires not only effective patrol tactics to decrease the intensity of an event, but also
knowledge about mental illness, communication techniques, and available resources
and tools," with the goal of "control[ling] the pace of the event whenever possible by
using sound patrol tactics."
POSPD also includes specific instruction on communication, including "tactical,
investigative, conversational techniques." Additionally, the training stresses
emotional intelligence, including:
Self-Awareness- Recognize one's own emotions as they are occurring
to help guide your decision making.
Self-Management- The ability to control and manage your emotions
in the moment and adapt to rapidly changing circumstances (selfcontrol
).
Social Awareness The ability to recognize emotions in others
(empathy, "seeing through the eyes of another").
Relationship Management The ability to inspire, influence,
connect, and contribute to healthy conflict resolution (rapport
building).
These concepts are well-developed and POSPD trainers should continue to seek out
new methods for delivering this material.122
Recommendation No. 46. The POSPD should continue to stress a
"guardian mentality" in its trainings.
As set forth by the Criminal Justice Training Commission and quoted by the POSPD,
"The Heart and Mind of the Guardian is a career long education process designed to
ensure the development of a highly evolved police officer who is prepared at any
moment to reflect the best of what policing demands. POSPD fosters a culture of
121 International Association of Chiefs of Police, National Consensus Policy and Discussion
Paper on Use of Force 6 (Oct. 2017),
http://www.theiacp.org/Portals/0/documents/pdfs/National_Consensus_Policy_On_Use_Of_F
orce.pdf [hereinafter "IACP Consensus Policy"].
122 See e.g., https://www.policeforum.org/icat-training-guide
116 388
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
leadership, character, and service in the spirit of what democratic policing promises
its citizenry. It is a process aimed at developing the right: Heartset, Mindset, Skillset
and Toolset, enabling officers to meet the demands of modern policing."
All of the recent training included discussion of the value of the guardian mindset,
which necessarily incorporates readiness to take action in order to "guard," but
deemphasizes militaristic attitudes.123 The concept was specifically stressed in the
2021 Use of Force in-service training.
However, all trainings prior to 2020 contained some form of admonition similar to the
below, suggesting that the concept is still developing at POSPD.
Recommendation No. 47. The POSPD should provide positive examples
to reinforce good police tactics rather than stressing poor outcomes in
training.
Although the POSPD trainings stressed the positive outcomes that can be achieved
through more thoughtful police engagements, the video examples presented to the
classes were almost exclusively violent and lessons in what "not to do." POSPD should
seek out the success stories in which officers successfully de-escalated or
communicated with subjects to set positive examples of what "to do."124
Recommendation No. 48. The POSPD should continue to utilize
national and local leadership development opportunities, but with
transparent selection criteria.
In the past, leadership development programs, such as West Point Leadership, the
Senior Management Institute for Police, the FBI National Academy, and Leadership
in Police Organizations, a three-month program, have been successful options for
POSPD. Additionally, the Port's Leadership Tomorrow program was cited as an
excellent development opportunity, especially with its focus on "understanding race
123 Kyle McLean, Scott E. Wolfe, Jeff Rojek, Geoffrey P. Alpert & Michael R.
Smith (2020) Police Officers as Warriors or Guardians: Empirical Reality or Intriguing
Rhetoric?, Justice Quarterly, 37:6, 1096-1118, DOI: 10.1080/07418825.2018.1533031
124 https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/05/police-shootings-the-grim-videos-cops-watchof-their-colleagues-being-killed-in-the-line-of-duty.html
117 389
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
and racism in this country." However, there are no established internal selection
criteria and some officers complained that selection was not transparent, often based
on connections, and sometimes wasted on officers late in their career when the
leadership knowledge could not benefit the department before that officer's
retirement. In 21CP's experience, these types of programs impart meaningful skills
and techniques for emerging Departmental leaders and, critically, allow officers to
gain a national perspective on policing and on best and emerging practices in the
profession. Graduates of these programs often return to their agencies with broader
perspectives and new ideas that help to reinvigorate their departments' everyday
cultures.
Recommendation No. 49. The POSPD should consider incorporating
existing community engagement opportunities as part of training to better
understand cultural differences.
Jurisdictions the size of POSPD do not always have the bandwidth to recreate
external community engagements focused on the many diverse communities with
whom the departments interact. However, several noted existing opportunities, such
as engagement with the NW Immigrants' Rights Project and the Seattle Police
Demographic Advisory Councils, such as the African American Police Advisory
Council.125 As these entities are already established, providing the encouragement
and support for POSPD officers to attend would help develop the department's overall
cultural competency.
X. ADVOCACY
A. Motion 2020-15 and Advocacy
The Motion indicated that the Task Force assessment should include a review of
potential state and federal legislation and reforms, such as changes to federal
"qualified immunity" provisions or the creation of state or federal misconduct
tracking databases, for the Port to include in its advocacy efforts.
This work was redesigned mid-project to allow members of the Task Force and 21CP
to engage in real time with the Port's legislative efforts around police reform during
the Washington State Legislature's 2021 legislative session. This "kitchen cabinet" of
Port and external advisors helped to evaluate state legislation and inform the Port's
125 https://www.seattle.gov/police/community-policing/demographic-advisorycouncils
/african-american-community-advisory-council
118 390
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
advocacy strategy. At the heart of these discussions was the work of the relevant
subcommittee, which helped provide a better understanding of POSPD operations
and policy.
B. Qualified Immunity
While Motion 2020-15 specifically references Qualified Immunity, this is a
policy/legal matter and 21CP is not providing legal advice on what the Port should do
vis a vis Qualified Immunity.
Qualified Immunity is at the forefront of national debates on how to improve
policing126 but is apparently poorly understood both in concept and in practice. It is
also one of the most contentious parts of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act that,
at the time of this writing, is stalled in the United States Senate after being passed
by the House of Representatives. Qualified Immunity is a limited defense for
government officials not only police127 who are sued in their individual capacity
in civil lawsuits under Title 42 U.S.C. for money damages for allegations of violations
of federal law, primarily the United States Constitution. It does not apply in criminal
cases, in disciplinary matters, in lawsuits seeking to require changes to how policing
is done (also called injunctive relief), in lawsuits against the Port itself, or in
negligence cases brought under state law.
42 U.S.C. 1983 was enacted in 1871 as part of the Ku Klux Klan Act and provides
civil remedies for Constitutional deprivations by a "person" acting under "color of
law." State and local officials must be sued in their individual capacity, not in their
official capacity. Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989).
Therefore, police officers sued under 1983 are individually liable, not the Port of
Seattle.
Qualified Immunity is a doctrine designed to temper this individual liability by
protecting "all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law."
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986). "[T]he protection of qualified immunity
applies regardless of whether the government official's error is 'a mistake of law, a
mistake of fact, or a mistake based on mixed questions of law and fact.'" Pearson v.
Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009).
126 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/08/us/supreme-court-qualified-immunity.html
127 The Port of Seattle asserted Qualified Immunity in King County Superior Court Cause
No. 20-2-10720-4 SEA, which is currently pending, and involves non-police Port employees.
119 391
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
The doctrine asks two questions. The first question (also called a First Prong
Analysis) is whether there was a Constitutional violation. If the Court finds there
was no violation, then the case is dismissed on the merits. However, if the Court
cannot make that finding (or simply chooses not to address the First Prong), the Court
considers whether the Constitutional right was clearly established such "that every
reasonable officer" would know that the conduct was unlawful. Ashcroft v. al-Kidd,
563 U.S. 731 (2011). This does "not require a case directly on point, but existing
precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate."
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986).
It is this Second Prong analysis that causes concern about Qualified Immunity as
there have been a host of Court decisions stretching the analysis to the point of
absurdity128. However, a 2017 national study found that qualified immunity was only
granted in 3.9% of the cases during 2011-2012, across five federal circuits, in which
the defense could have been raised129 and concluded, therefore, that the doctrine does
not have a major impact on the outcome of civil litigation. In contrast, Federal District
Court Judge Carlton W. Reeves, Southern District of Mississippi, recently authored
a scathing indictment of the doctrine of Qualified Immunity, complete with its
historical context in law.130
21CP requested "Section 1983 lawsuits filed against the Port/Port employees for the
last five years and any information on whether Qualified Immunity
was raised and if so, whether it was successful" from the Port. Additionally, 21CP
undertook a docket search of the Western District of Washington for "Port of Seattle
Police Department," which revealed some earlier cases. Noting that this may not
encompass all litigation brought against the Port of Seattle for actions of its police
officers, two points stand out. First, litigation alleging constitutional violations by
128 See Jamison v. McClendon, 16-CV-595-CWR*31 (Southern District of Mississippi
2020)("Our courts have shielded a police officer who shot a child while the officer was
attempting to shoot the family dog; prison guards who forced a prisoner to sleep in cells
"covered in feces" for days; police officers who stole over $225,000 worth of property; a deputy
who body- slammed a woman after she simply "ignored [the deputy's] command and walked
away"; an officer who seriously burned a woman after detonating a "flashbang" device in the
bedroom where she was sleeping; an officer who deployed a dog against a suspect who
"claim[ed] that he surrendered by raising his hands in the air"; and an officer who shot an
unarmed woman eight times after she threw a knife and glass at a police dog that was
attacking her brother.")(citations omitted).
129 https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/how-qualified-immunity-fails
130 https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/08/04/jamison-v-mcclendon.pdf
120 392
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Port of Seattle Police Officers is empirically rare and the defense of these cases very
successful. Second, 21CP did not identify any case that was dismissed based on the
Second Prong of Qualified Immunity.
Cause Number Allegation Resolution
17-1873-MJP Port of Seattle Police Officers Dismissed by Court on
present during secondary Summary Judgment finding
TSA screening no Constitutional violation;
not based on Qualified
Immunity
16-cv-00483-JCC Port of Seattle Officers Settled; not resolved on
falsely arrested plaintiff and Qualified Immunity
used excessive force during
the arrest.
12-0966 RSM Port of Seattle Officers Dismissed by Court on
falsely arrested plaintiff and Summary Judgment finding
failed to provide him with his probable cause for arrest and
anti-seizure medications. that officers properly called
EMTs to administer
medication; not based on
Qualified Immunity131
13-1708-JCC Port of Seattle Detective Dismissed by Court on
negligently investigated her Summary Judgment finding
allegations of sexual assault no Constitutional violation;
by TSA. not based on Qualified
Immunity
15-0038-RSM Port of Seattle Officer Dismissed by Court on
stopped plaintiff's vehicle Summary Judgment finding
twice and subjected him to no Constitutional violation as
arrest without probable officer had reasonable
cause. suspicion to stop and probable
cause to arrest; not based on
Qualified Immunity
131 This order is somewhat confusing as it does analyze both claims under the Qualified
Immunity standards. However, because the Court found probable cause and that the officers
properly managed plaintiff's need for medication, the case was dismissed because there was
no Constitutional violation (First prong of Qualified Immunity) and the Court never reached
whether the law was clearly established, which is the controversial aspect of Qualified
Immunity.
121 393
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
C. Ongoing Legislative Efforts
Recommendation No. 50. POSPD should continue to incorporate the
new legislative requirements into policy and reinforce those changes
through training.
As discussed throughout this report, the 2021 legislative session introduced many
significant and sweeping changes to the landscape of policing. These laws address a
wide range of topics including, use of force, mandatory de-escalation, duty to
intervene, Brady reporting, requirements to record Miranda warning given to
juveniles, certification (and de-certification) changes, background investigation
requirements, and how use of deadly force will be investigated, Many of the new
legislative requirements were already part of the POSPD policy manual, but there is
much work to be done to ensure complete alignment of policy and law and then to
train officers on those changes. POSPD has taken a regional leadership role in
advancing new policies that may be adopted by other agencies and is currently
working to update its operations. POSPD should continue on that path.
Recommendation No. 51. The Port should continue to engage with key
stakeholders and elected officials on emerging State and Federal
legislation.
The 2020 - 2021 legislative session was comprehensive, but some reform approaches
did not make it into law. Bills that did not pass this session addressed subjects such
as granting authority to the Attorney General to prosecute officer deadly force cases,
making community oversight boards mandatory, new methods of suing individual
officers that would bypass federal qualified immunity, and restrictions on the powers
of police unions. As these state bills are reintroduced in a similar or different form,
other state police reform legislation is advanced, or as federal legislation is proposed,
such as the George Floyd in Policing Act, the Port should remain proactive in
understanding the significance of changes under consideration and determine
whether particular provisions are right for the Port, its employees, and its
community. The Port should share its unique perspectives to help shape those pieces
of legislation that are particularly relevant.
122 394
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
XI. BUDGET, ROLES, AND EQUIPMENT
A. Motion 2020-15 and Budget, Roles, and Equipment.
The Motion states that the assessment should examine whether certain nonemergency
situations could be better responded to by the deployment of nonuniformed
officers, and whether investments in community-focused programs could
decrease the prevalence of such situations. In addition, the assessment should review
Port Police equipment and supplies used to conduct routine police work, including
mass events and crowd management, and determine if any are excessive or
unnecessary; in particular, the assessment should look at how military-grade
equipment is procured and used, as well as the role of body cameras as a potential
accountability measure for Port policing.
Similar to the Advocacy Committee, and in part due to emerging state law, the Task
Force agreed that this portion of the assessment was better addressed with technical
advice from 21CP on specific topics, along with identification of budget consequences
for the recommendations in this report.
B. Reducing the Police Role in Responding to Homelessness and Persons
in Crisis
As previously raised in the Use of Force section, the Port's response to homelessness
and persons in crisis would be well-served by reducing the role of police and switching
to an unarmed, service-oriented approach. A lack of mental health services coupled
with the often-co-occurring conditions of substance use disorder, homelessness, and
other conditions of despair has led to jurisdictions nationwide increasingly relying
on police officers to serve as first responders to incidents of behavioral crisis. In
nearby Seattle, a December 2018 report found that nearly 3 percent of all calls to
police some approximately 15,000 over an 18-month period involved an individual
in behavioral or emotional crisis.132 Some studies suggest that as many as ten percent
of officer-public contacts overall involve a person in a serious mental health crisis.133
132 Seattle Police Department, Use of Force in Crisis-Involved Incidents (Dec. 2018),
https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/Police/Publications/Crisis_UoF%20Report
%20SPD
%20Final.pdf.
133 Martha W. Deane, "Emerging Partnerships Between Mental Health and Law
Enforcement," 50
Psychiatric Services 99 (1999).
123 395
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
As discussed above, while the POSPD does not track crisis calls or responses to people
experiencing homelessness, 58% of uses of force are in trespass cases, which appear
to be a reasonable proxy for homelessness cases.
The POSPD has taken the lead at directing resources towards this issue by drafting
a job description for a Crisis Coordinator to be the point of contact internally and
externally for issues relating to crisis. The Coordinator would be familiar with
outreach services, have an understanding of mental illness manifestations, track
crisis services and laws, build and maintain necessary relationships, and generally
serve as a focused resource on this issue.
C. Military Style Equipment
Regarding military equipment, HB1054, Chapter 320, Laws of 2021, Sec. 5, states
that "A law enforcement agency may not acquire or use any military equipment. Any
law enforcement agency in possession of military equipment as of the effective date
of this section shall return the equipment to the federal agency from which it was
acquired, if applicable, or destroy the equipment by December 31, 2022." This
prohibition applies to "firearms and ammunition of .50 caliber or greater, machine
guns, armed helicopters, armed or armored drones, armed vessels, armed vehicles,
armed aircraft, tanks, long range acoustic hailing devices, rockets, rocket launchers,
bayonets, grenades, missiles, directed energy systems, and electromagnetic spectrum
weapons." In response, the Port of Seattle Police identified that two .50 caliber rifles
meet this restriction and are taking appropriate action to dispose of those weapons134.
The concern of the Port Commission in this area appears to have been resolved based
on this legislation.
134 This change is mandated by law and therefore we do not debate the wisdom of disposing
of these weapons. POSPD reported that they were obtained as an option for shooting through
plane windows in the event of a hijacking, which seems different in kind than the need most
departments would have for a weapon of this caliber. Additionally, some departments have
raised concerns over HB 1054, which on its face would prohibit 40mm Less Lethal Launchers
as they are technically greater than .50 caliber, we understand that the POSPD has elected
to keep those less lethal force options, which the bill drafter has indicated was the original
intent. See https://www.q13fox.com/news/local-law-enforcement-has-concerns-over-newpolice-reform-laws-going-into-effect.
124 396
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
D. Body Cameras
The use of body-worn cameras has dramatically accelerated across the policing
profession in recent years. By the end of 2018, "about 10,500 agencies, or 58 percent
of all law enforcement departments in the U.S., used body cameras."135
Body-worn cameras have been associated with a number of benefits. First, a number
of jurisdictions that deploy them have experienced decreases in officer use of force,
officer misconduct, and civilian complaints about officer conduct.136 Body-worn
cameras may result in better transparency and accountability and thus may improve
law enforcement legitimacy."137 Indeed, cameras "may lead to a faster resolution of
citizen complaints and lawsuits" by resolving issues and factual disputes effectively
and efficiently.138 Of course, "[f]ootage captured may be used as evidence in arrests
or prosecutions."139 At the same time, body-worn camera footage also provides
opportunities for the department to better learn from actual officer performance.140
Finally, "[b]ody-worn cameras may also result in higher rates of citizen compliance
to officer commands during encounters," with civilians and police officers alike
changing their behavior when they know that they are being recorded.141
Others remain skeptical about whether body worn cameras improve policecommunity
relationships in any meaningful way. One study in Baltimore found that:
Black residents are unimpressed by body-worn camera initiatives;
can be traumatized by the constant violent reminders that the footage
often brings; and feel like they are in a "special kind of hell" when
135 Ben Miller, "Just How Common Are Body Cameras in Police Departments?," Government
Technology (June 28, 2019), https://www.govtech.com/data/Just-How-Common-Are-Body-
Cameras-in-Police-Departments.html
136 See, e.g., Michael D. White, Office of Justice Programs Diagnostic Center, U.S. Dept. of
Justice, Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras: Assessing the Evidence 21 (2014); Brett
Chapman, "Body-Worn Cameras: What the Evidence Tells Us," 280 NIJ Journal 3 (Jan.
2019), https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/252035.pdf.
137 Brett Chapman, "Body-Worn Cameras: What the Evidence Tells Us," 280 NIJ Journal 2
(Jan. 2019), https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/252035.pdf.
138 Id.
139 Id.
140 Id.
141 Id.
125 397
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
faced with the perceived inaction following even the most damning of
camera footage evidence.142
Most calls for the adoption of BWC programs stem from concerns about use of force
and resolution of complaints143. Given 21CP's review of the POSPD's use of force
policies (ninety use of force cases from 2018-2020), the work of the Use of Force
Subcommittee (which unanimously agreed not to recommend development of a BWC
program given the relatively infrequent use of force and costs involved with BWCs),
the work of the Oversight Subcommittee and 21CP's review of the relatively few
complaints about POSPD activities, 21CP was not intending to issue a
recommendation that POSPD develop a BWC program. The POSPD use force
approximately 30 times per year, two-thirds of which occur in the airport facility,
which has an extensive network of security cameras. In 21CP's case review, video
evidence was easily available in 57 percent of cases but that number is likely even
higher. Given the infrequency of use of force and the already available video evidence,
body-cameras did not rise as a priority, especially given the high costs. Most police
departments in Washington State do not have BWC programs, primarily due "to the
long-term costs of managing, storing and releasing body-worn camera and dashcamera
video to the public."144
However, the landscape was changed by Substitute House Bill 1223, which passed
into the Session Law of 2021 in Chapter 329, and which requires (subject to
exceptions) that:
a custodial interrogation, including the giving of any required
warning, advice of the rights of the individual being questioned, and
the waiver of any rights by the individual, must be recorded
electronically in its entirety if the interrogation subject is a juvenile
or if the interrogation relates to a felony crime.
142 Erin M. Kerrison, Jennifer Cobbina & Kimberly Bender (2018) Stop-gaps, lip service, and
the perceived futility of body-worn police officer cameras in Baltimore City, Journal of Ethnic
& Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 27:3, 271-288, DOI: 10.1080/15313204.2018.1479912
143 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services,
Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned 34
(2014) (noting use of cost-benefit analysis "when exploring whether to implement body-worn
camera" technology); Police Executive Research Forum, Citizen Perceptions of Body-Worn
Cameras: A Randomized Controlled Trial (2017).
144 https://www.king5.com/article/news/investigations/police-body-cameras-not-a-priorityfor-washington-lawmakers-in-2021-session
/281-f189f3ce-f565-4b8c-955a-308f67c0e01e
126 398
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Based on these requirements and the infeasibility of recording and tracking such
electronic records outside of a BWC program, the POSPD has begun implementing
body-worn cameras.
Recommendation No. 52. As a body worn camera program is developed,
the POSPD should consider policy choices around when cameras should
be activated, what are acceptable uses for BWC footage, when officers may
view footage, and how the BWC program can support overall
transparency.
1. When should the cameras be activated?
Most departments require BWCs to be activated when "law enforcement action is
taken." Typically, this occurs when officers are dispatched to a call or take proactive
enforcement action based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Communities in
many jurisdictions throughout the nation have raised concerns about the privacy
implications of police deploying body camera technology. Unlike other types of
surveillance cameras or in-car video systems, body-worn cameras can "give officers
the ability to record inside private homes and to film sensitive situations that might
emerge during calls for service."145 However, there are very real privacy
considerations in First Amendment contexts, in hospitals or other care facilities, in
sexual assault cases146, and when entering a home. Given the body of work POSPD
officers engage in, some of these circumstances will arise less frequently than in other
municipal departments. Nonetheless, clarity for officers on what discretion they have
when activating cameras is critically important nothing damages the legitimacy of
a BWC program then officers not turning on the cameras when required.147
145 Police Executive Research Forum/Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S.
Department of Justice, Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and
Lessons Learned 11 (2014).
146 See National Sexual Violence Resource Center, SART Toolkit Section 5.6,
https://www.nsvrc.org/sarts/toolkit/5-6 (last visited June 30, 2021); Pennsylvania Coalition
Against Rape, The Use of Body-Worn Cameras with Victims of Sexual Violence (2017),
https://pcar.org/sites/default/files/resource- pdfs/body_worn_cameras_factsheet.pdf; Mary D.
Fan, "Privacy, Public Disclosure, Police Body Cameras: Policy Splits," 68 Alabama L. Rev.
395 (2016),
https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1059&context=facultyarticles
147 https://www.policingequity.org/newsroom/blog/police-body-cameras-are-pointless-unlesscops-use-them-correctly
127 399
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
But discretion is not a bad thing, when backed by clear policy and accountability. For
example, the Salt Lake City Police Department allows officers to suspend recording
in particular instances, including "during a conversation with a sensitive victim of a
crime, a witness of a crime, or an individual who wishes to report or discuss criminal
activity" if certain conditions are met, as well as "during a significant period of
inactivity."148 When video is discontinued, "[t]he officer shall also document the
reason for placing the body cameras into Privacy Mode in a written report."149
Similarly, the Seattle Police Department allows discretion in recording in sensitive
areas ("jails and the interiors of medical, mental health, counseling, or therapeutic
facilities unless for a direct law enforcement purpose"), residences and private areas,
to protect privacy and dignity ("natural death scenes, death notifications, child or
sexual assault victim interviews, cultural or religious objections to being recorded,
and when the use of BWV would impede or limit the cooperation of a victim or
witness"), as long as "[e]mployees who stop recording during an event will state on
the recording their intention to stop recording and explain the basis for that decision.
Employees will also document the reason(s) in the Report and/or CAD update."150
2. What are the acceptable uses for body-worn cameras within the
department?
A BWC program policy should set out the purposes of the video within department,
who may access the video, and under what circumstances. May video be used for
training purposes? What happens if policy violations are discovered when reviewing
video? Again, clarity is paramount.
3. When may officers view their BWC evidence before writing a report?
One highly debated issue is when officers may view video prior to writing a report.
According to many police executives, the primary benefit to officer
review is that it allows officers to recall events more clearly, which
helps get to the truth of what really happened. Some police executives,
on the other hand, said that it is better for an officer's statement to
148 Police Executive Research Forum, Executive Guidebook: Practical Approaches for
Strengthening Law Enforcement's Response to Sexual Assault 6970 (May 2018).
149 Id. at 70.
150 https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-16---patrol-operations/16090---in-car-andbody-worn-video
128 400
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
reflect what he or she perceived during the event, rather than what
the camera footage revealed.151
However, both police reform advocates and some police defense attorneys argue that
capturing a perceptual statement before an officer views any evidence, including
video, is best practice. For example, in the Seattle Federal Consent Decree, the
Federal Court-approved policy allows officers to view video prior to writing criminal
or low-level use of force reports, but prohibits review prior to being interviewed in
serious use of force cases, thereby striking a balance between efficiency and accuracy
in reporting and the benefits of capturing an officer's "perception of what
occurred."152 However, the Court expressly recognized that "there will inevitably be
inconsistencies between reports written before and after review of BWV due to the
inherent limits of human perception and memory."153 As such, any policy restricting
officer's ability to review BWC evidence should include a clear statement that
inconsistencies are expected and that not all discrepancies between video and officer
recall and reporting implies dishonesty.
4. How can the program support transparency?
Nationally, there is a movement towards greater and timely transparency at the state
level. California requires release of body worn camera recordings within 45 days of
the incident154. Governor Lamont of Connecticut issued an executive order requiring
release of state police body worn camera evidence within four days155. Colorado
requires video evidence to be released within 21 days156. Municipalities and police
departments have also moved towards greater transparency with video evidence. As
examples, the D.C. Metro Police release video evidence within five days of the
151 Police Executive Research Forum/Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S.
Department of Justice, Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and
Lessons Learned 29 (2014).
152 12-cv-1282 (JLR), Dkt. No. 390.
153 Id. at 7.
154 Cal. A.B. 748 (2018),
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB748.
155 Press Release, Governor Ned Lamont, Governor Lamont Signs Executive Order
Modernizing Police Strategies and Programs (June 15, 2020), https://portal.ct.gov/Office-ofthe-Governor
/News/Press-Releases/2020/06-2020/Governor-Lamont-Signs-Executive-Order-
Modernizing-Police-Strategies-and-Programs
156 Colo. S.B. 20-217, https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2020a_217_signed.pdf.
129 401
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
incident157; the Seattle Police Department requires release of objective evidence
within 72 hours158.
There are many logistical concerns and the specific information release policy that
applies to any jurisdiction must be specifically tailored, but what is important is that
the protocols are developed ahead of time and not during a crisis. In 21CP's
experience, the increased legitimacy and trust that occurs with transparency far
outweighs any logistical concerns of releasing objective evidence in matters of public
concern as soon as possible. Providing objective evidence fills the speculative gaps for
members of the public and can help alleviate social unrest around critical incidents.
To be fair, POSPD has relatively few "critical events" and does not spend much time
defending its actions in the press. That being said, a clear media policy stating what
will be released and when is critical to the development of a BWC program, including:
Specific timing of release of information, regardless of whether the objective
evidence appears favorable or dis-favorable to the department or the Port;
Clear parameters for any statements by any member of the department to
ensure that the statements are factual and do not pre-judge the incident159;
A prohibition on releasing the criminal background of the subject of the critical
incident, except as specifically relevant to the incident itself; and
A commitment to regularly update the public on developments in the
investigation.
157 D.C. Act 23-336 (2020), https://lims.dccouncil.us/downloads/LIMS/45307/Signed_Act/B23-
0825-Signed_Act.pdf.
158 https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-1---department-administration/1115---media-
release-officer-involved-shooting
159 https://deborahjacobs.medium.com/stop-police-false-narratives-about-officer-involveddeaths-d34cb539ee25
(Article by Training & Development Co-Chair, Deborah Jacobs).
130 402
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Table of Recommendations
General Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION NO. 1. POSPD SHOULD CONTINUE TO SCRUTINIZE THE
INTENT AND LANGUAGE OF EVERY LEXIPOL POLICY AND MODIFY THE
POLICIES TO ENSURE THAT THEY MEET BEST PRACTICES AND NOT JUST
LEGAL MINIMUMS. 11
RECOMMENDATION NO. 2. AS THE POSPD GATHERS MORE DATA ON OFFICER
ACTIVITY, THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD CONTINUE TO SCRUTINIZE THAT
DATA FOR ANY DISPARITIES IN USE OF FORCE AND WORK TO ENSURE THAT
POSPD'S DEPLOYMENT STRATEGIES AND APPROACH TO POLICING
MINIMIZE THOSE DISPARITIES. 12
RECOMMENDATION NO. 3. THE PORT SHOULD CONSIDER CREATING A
QUARTERLY PORT SAFETY COMMITTEE TO BRING INTERESTED
STAKEHOLDERS TOGETHER. 14
RECOMMENDATION NO. 4. THE PORT SHOULD CONDUCT A STUDY OF THE
INTERNAL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND COMMUNICATIONS
INVOLVING THE POSPD TO DETERMINE HOW TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE
GOAL OF ENHANCING POSPD TRANSPARENCY THROUGH REGULAR
ENGAGEMENT WITH PORT LEADERSHIP. 14
RECOMMENDATION NO. 5. CUSTOMER SERVICES AND THE POSPD SHOULD
DEVELOP OR REFINE PROTOCOLS ON THE HANDLING OF COMPLAINTS AND
COMPLIMENTS ABOUT PORT POLICE OFFICERS. 21
RECOMMENDATION NO. 6. PORT LEADERSHIP SHOULD SUPPORT THE POSPD BY
DEVELOPING FIRST RESPONDER ALTERNATIVES TO INCIDENTS INVOLVING
THE HOMELESS THAT DO NOT INVOLVE ARMED POSPD OFFICERS AND
INCREASE ACCESS TO HOLISTIC RESOURCES. 23
RECOMMENDATION NO. 7. THE POSPD SHOULD COMMENCE A CAMPAIGN OF
INTERNAL PROCEDURAL JUSTICE TRAINING FOR ALL LEVELS OF THE
DEPARTMENT TO HELP ADDRESS THE BROAD-BASED SENSE OF INEQUITY,
ESPECIALLY WITH EMPLOYEES OF COLOR. 27
Use of Force Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION NO. 8. THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD CONSIDER
RESTRUCTURING THE USE OF FORCE POLICIES INTO A UNIFIED POLICY. 49
RECOMMENDATION NO. 9. THE MISSION AND VISION STATEMENTS IN THE
POLICY MANUAL SHOULD MORE CLEARLY INDICATE THE DEPARTMENT'S
COMMITMENT, IN ALL OF ITS ACTIVITIES, TO VALUING AND UPHOLDING
i 403
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
EQUITY AND FAIRNESS, DE-ESCALATION, THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE,
AND ACHIEVING THE BEST POSSIBLE OUTCOME FOR ALL INVOLVED. 50
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10. THE DE-ESCALATION POLICY SHOULD BE UPDATED
TO MAKE DE-ESCALATION ATTEMPTS MANDATORY, WHEN POSSIBLE TO DO
SO, AND TO ADD DE-ESCALATION TACTICS. 51
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11. THE USE OF FORCE POLICY SHOULD EXPRESSLY
REQUIRE THAT ANY USE OF FORCE BE OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE,
NECESSARY, AND PROPORTIONAL. 54
RECOMMENDATION NO. 12. THE USE OF FORCE POLICY SHOULD REQUIRE
OFFICERS TO PROVIDE A WARNING, WHEN SAFE AND FEASIBLE, BEFORE
USING ANY FORCE. 56
RECOMMENDATION NO. 13. THE USE OF FORCE POLICY SHOULD REQUIRE
OFFICERS TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR
TRAINING AND IMMEDIATELY SUMMON MEDICAL AID TO THE SCENE. 58
RECOMMENDATION NO. 14. POLICY SHOULD BE REVISED TO REQUIRE OFFICERS
TO REPORT AND DOCUMENT ALL FORCE THEY USE AND/OR WITNESS. 59
RECOMMENDATION NO. 15. THE USE OF FORCE REPORTING POLICY SHOULD
REQUIRE THAT A SUPERVISOR RESPOND TO ALL APPLICATIONS OF
REPORTABLE FORCE, NOT JUST THOSE THAT RESULT IN "VISIBLE INJURY."
60
RECOMMENDATION NO. 16. THE POSPD SHOULD CONSIDER HAVING OFFICERS
ENTER USE OF FORCE REPORTS DIRECTLY INTO BLUETEAM, RATHER THAN
HAVING A SUPERVISOR GATHER AND PRESENT FACTS. THE SUPERVISOR'S
INVESTIGATION AND ALL SUPPORTING MATERIALS SHOULD BE
CONSOLIDATED IN BLUETEAM AND ROUTED TO THE CHAIN OF COMMAND
THROUGH THE SYSTEM. 60
RECOMMENDATION NO. 17. THE POSPD SHOULD MAXIMIZE ITS TRANSPARENCY
BY PUBLISHING DATA AND REPORTS ON ITS WEBSITE AND REGULARLY
REPORTING THE INFORMATION TO THE COMMISSION. 62
RECOMMENDATION NO. 18. VIDEO EVIDENCE SHOULD BE DOWNLOADED AND
INCLUDED IN BLUETEAM OR LINKED WITHIN THE SYSTEM. 62
RECOMMENDATION NO. 19. POSPD SHOULD CREATE A STANDING USE OF FORCE
REVIEW COMMITTEE, TO INCLUDE A TRAINING OFFICER, THE IA OFFICER,
AND COMMAND STAFF, EXCLUSIVE OF THE CHIEF, AND TASKED WITH
REVIEWING EVERY USE OF FORCE. 63
ii 404
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Mutual Aid Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION NO. 20. THE POSPD SHOULD CONTINUE TO TAKE THE LEAD
ON UPDATING CURRENT MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS TO DRIVE BEST
PRACTICES REGIONALLY AND ALIGN WITH THE NEW STATE POLICING
LAWS. 70
RECOMMENDATION NO. 21. AFTER ENGAGING IN MUTUAL AID DEPLOYMENTS,
AT THE PORT OR IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS, POSPD SHOULD ACTIVELY
ENGAGE IN AFTER-ACTION ASSESSMENTS AND TRACK ALL RESULTING
RECOMMENDATIONS. 71
RECOMMENDATION NO. 22. THE POSPD SHOULD DEVELOP ITS OWN CROWD
MANAGEMENT POLICY OUTLINING THE POSPD TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT,
FACILITATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT ACTIVITIES, AND WHICH
SPECIFICALLY SETS FORTH THE POSPD ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY WITH
DEMONSTRATION LEADERSHIP. 71
RECOMMENDATION NO. 23. THE PORT SHOULD ADD SPECIFIC APPROVAL
CRITERIA AND PROCESSES REQUIRED BEFORE DEPLOYING RESOURCES
FOR MUTUAL AID. 72
Oversight, Accountability, Equity and Civil Rights Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION NO. 24. POSPD SHOULD ADOPT THE PORT OF SEATTLE CODE
OF CONDUCT INTO POLICY. 83
RECOMMENDATION NO. 25. POSPD POLICY SHOULD MAKE EXPLICIT THE TYPES
OF COMPLAINTS THAT SHOULD BE PURSUED INTERNALLY VERSES THOSE
THAT SHOULD BE HANDLED THROUGH PORT OF SEATTLE HUMAN
RESOURCES, WORKPLACE RESPONSIBILITY, OR OTHER AVENUES OF
COMPLAINT, WITH EXPLICIT PROTOCOLS BETWEEN COMPONENTS
DEVELOPED, INCLUDING TIMELINES FOR COMPLETING INVESTIGATIONS
OF EMPLOYEE COMPLAINTS. 84
RECOMMENDATION NO. 26. THE COMPLAINT CLASSIFICATION SCHEME
(INQUIRY AND MINOR, MODERATE. OR MAJOR COMPLAINT) SHOULD BE
REVISED AS IT IS UNNECESSARILY TECHNICAL, THE TERMS USED ARE NOT
CONSISTENTLY WELL DEFINED, AND USE OF A METHODOLOGY TO ASSIST
IN COMPLAINT CLASSIFICATION WILL PROMOTE OBJECTIVITY AND
CONSISTENCY. 85
RECOMMENDATION NO. 27. WHEN AN ON-DUTY SUPERVISOR HANDLES
COMPLAINT INTAKE AND THE INVESTIGATION OF AN INQUIRY OR MINOR
COMPLAINT, THEIR INVESTIGATION MEMO SHOULD INDICATE THE
RATIONALE BEHIND THE CLASSIFICATION DECISION, THE COMPLAINT
CLASSIFICATION SHOULD BE EXPLICITLY APPROVED BY THE COMMANDER,
iii 405
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
AND COMPLAINT CLASSIFICATION DECISIONS SHOULD BE REGULARLY
AUDITED TO CHECK FOR CONSISTENCY IN APPLICATION OF POLICY AND
OTHER CLASSIFICATION GUIDANCE. 87
RECOMMENDATION NO. 28. THOUGH THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF MISSED
TIMELINES FOR COMPLETING INVESTIGATIONS, BEST PRACTICE WOULD BE
TO SET TIMELINES FOR EACH STEP IN THE PROCESS, FROM COMPLAINT
INTAKE THROUGH A FINAL DISPOSITION, INCLUDING NOTICE TO THE
NAMED OFFICER AND COMPLAINANT, AND THE TIMELINES SHOULD BE
REFLECTED IN AN UPDATED COMPLAINT INTAKE FLOWCHART, AND POLICY
SHOULD BE CLARIFIED AS TO ACCEPTABLE REASONS FOR EXTENDING
TIMELINES, IDENTIFY WHO HAS AUTHORITY TO GRANT AN EXTENSION,
AND NOTE ANY LIMITS ON THE LENGTH OF AN EXTENSION. 88
RECOMMENDATION NO. 29. THE POSPD SHOULD DEVELOP POLICY THAT
IDENTIFIES POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND PROTOCOLS TO
ADDRESS ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED CONFLICTS RELATED TO MISCONDUCT
COMPLAINT HANDLING AND DISCIPLINE MATTERS. 89
RECOMMENDATION NO. 30.THE PORT SHOULD EXPLORE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION (ADR) OPTIONS FOR RESOLVING SOME COMPLAINTS,
WHETHER OR NOT THEY INVOLVE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AS ADR DOES
NOT APPEAR TO BE AN OPTION FOR CASE PROCESSING IN THE POSPD,
HUMAN RESOURCES, OR WORKPLACE RESPONSIBILITY. 90
RECOMMENDATION NO. 31. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF WAYS TO MAKE THE
POSPD AND COMPLAINT FILING SYSTEM MORE ACCESSIBLE TO
STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING MODIFYING THE COMPLAINT FORM,
CHANGING THE ON-LINE SEARCH SYSTEM, AND IDENTIFYING POLICE
FACILITIES ON SEA-TAC AIRPORT MAPS. 90
Diversity in Recruitment and Hiring Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION NO. 32. THE PORT SHOULD COORDINATE WITH THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT, HUMAN RESOURCES, AND OTHER PORT COMPONENTS TO
CONSOLIDATE DATA SOURCES WITH THE GOAL OF DEVELOPING A ROBUST
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYTIC APPROACH TO BETTER UNDERSTAND
THE RECRUITMENT AND HIRING OF POLICE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL,
INCLUDING AT WHICH STAGE WOMEN AND/OR APPLICANTS OF DIVERSE
ETHNIC AND RACIAL BACKGROUNDS HAVE HIGH FAIL RATES, AND
IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT. 100
RECOMMENDATION NO. 33. THE PORT SHOULD DEVELOP CLEAR GUIDANCE ON
THE BENCHMARKS TO BE USED IN ASSESSING THE AVAILABILITY AND
UTILIZATION OF PERSONS IDENTIFYING WITH DIFFERENT ETHNIC AND
RACIAL GROUPS, INCLUDING THE RATIONALE FOR USING CENSUS DATA
FROM SPECIFIC AREAS. 100
iv 406
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
RECOMMENDATION NO. 34. THE PORT SHOULD EXPLORE THE REASONING
BEHIND THE SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE (20-25%) OF EMPLOYEES WHO DO
NOT REPORT THEIR RACE/ETHNICITY AND CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF THIS
MISSING DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ON EMPLOYEE DEMOGRAPHIC
DATA ANALYSIS FOR IDENTIFYING AND ADDRESSING ANY DISPARITIES IN
HIRING AND OTHER EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES. 101
RECOMMENDATION NO. 35. THE PORT AND POLICE DEPARTMENT SHOULD
CONSIDER USING NON-BINARY GENDER DESIGNATIONS. 102
RECOMMENDATION NO. 36. DEVELOP A RECRUITMENT PLAN AIMED AT
INCREASING THE NUMBER OF HISPANIC/LATINO INDIVIDUALS APPLYING
TO BE A POLICE OFFICER AT THE POSPD. 103
RECOMMENDATION NO. 37. CONSIDER A VARIETY OF RECRUITMENT
SUGGESTIONS MADE BY THE DIVERSITY IN RECRUITMENT AND HIRING
SUBCOMMITTEE TO GATHER INFORMATION AND TO REACH OUT TO YOUTH
AND OTHER COMMUNITIES TO GARNER INTEREST IN POLICING AND IN THE
POSPD. 104
RECOMMENDATION NO. 38. FOLLOW-UP WITH PUBLIC SAFETY TESTING TO
EXPLORE WHY FEMALE APPLICANTS TO THE PORT OF SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT FAIL THE WRITTEN TEST AT A HIGHER LEVEL THAN MALE
APPLICANTS AND WHETHER THE PORT IS RECEIVING ALL DATA ANALYTICS
NEEDED TO ASSESS APPLICANT AND HIRING PATTERNS AND GIVE FOLLOWUP
CONSIDERATION AS TO WHY THERE HAVE BEEN NO FEMALE ENTRYLEVEL
HIRES IN THE PAST THREE YEARS. 105
RECOMMENDATION NO. 39. INCREASE THE NUMBER OF CIVILIANS, PULLING
FROM DIVERSE EMPLOYEE GROUPS SUCH AS EMPLOYEE RESOURCE
GROUPS (ERGS), TO BE TRAINED AND AVAILABLE TO SERVE ON ORAL
BOARDS, SO THAT THEY CAN ROTATE IN WHEN AVAILABLE TO ASSIST WITH
THIS STEP OF THE HIRING PROCESS AND CONSIDER WAYS TO ASSESS
WHETHER THE TRAINING PROVIDED TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF
IMPLICIT BIAS HAS POSITIVE IMPACTS. 106
RECOMMENDATION NO. 40. REVIEW ORAL BOARD QUESTIONS TO DETERMINE IF
THEY ARE ELICITING RESPONSES THAT ADDRESS THE SUBJECT AREA
BEHIND EACH QUESTION, SUCH AS ASSESSING CHARACTER, AND
CONSIDER WHETHER THE ORAL BOARD SHOULD INCLUDE QUESTIONS
DIRECTLY ASKING APPLICANTS ABOUT INVOLVEMENT IN EXTREMIST
GROUPS, ABOUT AN ENCOUNTER WITH SOMEONE OF A DIFFERENT RACE,
SEXUAL ORIENTATION, ETC., WHETHER THEY HAVE EVER BEEN THE
SUBJECT OF DISCRIMINATION THEMSELVES, OR THE COMMUNITY GROUPS
THEY BELONG TO. 106
RECOMMENDATION NO. 41. CONSIDER WHETHER SOME LIMITED FOLLOW-UP
QUESTIONS BY ORAL BOARD MEMBERS SHOULD BE PERMITTED. 107
v 407
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
RECOMMENDATION NO. 42. BRING REPRESENTATIVES OF ALL ERGS INTO THE
RECRUITMENT AND HIRING PROCESS AT ALL STEPS, NOT JUST FOR ORAL
BOARDS, SO THAT A VARIETY OF PERSPECTIVES AND IDEAS ARE SHARED
WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE PORT THROUGHOUT THE
PROCESS. 107
RECOMMENDATION NO. 43. WHILE POINTS CAN BE ADDED TO AN APPLICANT'S
SCORE IF THEY SPEAK A SECOND LANGUAGE, CONSIDER A PAY INCENTIVE
OR HIRING PREFERENCE FOR THE ABILITY TO SPEAK MORE THAN ONE
LANGUAGE, ENCOURAGING MULTILINGUALISM FOR APPLICANTS AND
CURRENT EMPLOYEES. 107
Training and Development Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION NO. 44. THE POSPD SHOULD CONSIDER RANKING
APPLICANTS FOR SPECIAL TEAM ASSIGNMENTS TO INCREASE
TRANSPARENCY IN THOSE PROCESSES. 114
RECOMMENDATION NO. 45. THE POSPD SHOULD CONTINUE TO TRAIN DEESCALATION
AS A CORE ENGAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY. 115
RECOMMENDATION NO. 46. THE POSPD SHOULD CONTINUE TO STRESS A
"GUARDIAN MENTALITY" IN ITS TRAININGS. 116
RECOMMENDATION NO. 47. THE POSPD SHOULD PROVIDE POSITIVE EXAMPLES
TO REINFORCE GOOD POLICE TACTICS RATHER THAN STRESSING POOR
OUTCOMES IN TRAINING. 117
RECOMMENDATION NO. 48. THE POSPD SHOULD CONTINUE TO UTILIZE
NATIONAL AND LOCAL LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES, BUT
WITH TRANSPARENT SELECTION CRITERIA. 117
RECOMMENDATION NO. 49. THE POSPD SHOULD CONSIDER INCORPORATING
EXISTING COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES AS PART OF
TRAINING TO BETTER UNDERSTAND CULTURAL DIFFERENCES. 118
Advocacy Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION NO. 50. POSPD SHOULD CONTINUE TO INCORPORATE THE
NEW LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS INTO POLICY AND REINFORCE THOSE
CHANGES THROUGH TRAINING. 122
RECOMMENDATION NO. 51. THE PORT SHOULD CONTINUE TO ENGAGE WITH
KEY STAKEHOLDERS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS ON EMERGING STATE AND
FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 122
vi 408
Recommendations for the Port of Seattle Task Force on Policing and Civil Rights
21CP Solutions | September 2021
Budget, Roles, and Equipment Recommendation
RECOMMENDATION NO. 52. AS BODY WORN CAMERA PROGRAM IS DEVELOPED,
THE POSPD SHOULD CONSIDER POLICY CHOICES AROUND WHEN CAMERAS
SHOULD BE ACTIVATED, WHAT ARE ACCEPTABLE USES FOR BWC FOOTAGE,
WHEN OFFICERS MAY VIEW FOOTAGE, AND HOW THE BWC PROGRAM CAN
SUPPORT OVERALL TRANSPARENCY. 127
vii 409
Brian Maxey
Kathryn Olson
Project Leads
Matthew Barge
Ganesha Martin
Kathleen O'Toole
Charles H. Ramsey
Sean Smoot
Project Team
21CP Solutions410
Item No. 11b_supp
Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
Commission Task Force on
Policing and Civil Rights
Final Report
September 14, 2021
411
1
BACKGROUND, GOALS &
PROCESS
412
2
Commission Motion 2020-15
Directed a comprehensive assessment of the Port of Seattle Police
Department
Established a Commission Task Force on Port Policing and Civil Rights to
lead the assessment and develop recommendations for action
Nine Areas for Assessment:
1. Diversity in Recruitment and Hiring 6. Police Union Participation
2. Training and Development 7. Mutual Aid
3. Equity 8. Advocacy
4. Use of Force 9. Budget, Roles, and Equipment
5. Oversight and Accountability
413
3
Task Force Work & Goals
Engaged over 50 internal and external stakeholders in Task Force,
subcommittees; conducted a POSPD employee survey & interviews
Most of the recommendations are the direct result of stakeholder
engagement
Task Force worked not only to identify areas for improvement, but also
serve as an example of how to productively engage in a thorough review
of police practices, protocols and internal processes.
Goal was to help POSPD achieve the highest nationwide standards for
public safety, protection of civil rights, equity, accountability and
oversight. 414
4
Key Next Steps
Finish gathering/incorporating feedback from stakeholders on the final report to
ensure transparency/alignment with Task Force contributions.
Co-chairs will provide an addendum of additional suggestions not incorporated
into final report based on stakeholder feedback.
Advance the Port's Implementation Plan, which will prioritize recommendations and
provide proposed timelines, budget and other details.
ED and Task Force Co-chairs will present that plan to Commissioners at a future
meeting; potential for Commission Order codifying the plan at that time
POSPD is already working to incorporate substantive changes required through
legislation passed during the Washington State Legislature's 2021 session
415
5
Policing Assessment
Findings
416
6
POSPD Has Strong Foundation For Success
Clear commitment to mission and goals
Good policies and procedures
Robust training program
Use of force is infrequent and, with few exceptions, reasonable, necessary,
and proportional.
Few POSPD misconduct complaints; all investigated in a timely and objective
manner.
Forward thinking leadership
417
7
Opportunities For Improvement Exist
More than 50 recommendations based on the work of the subcommittees as
well as additional engagement efforts
Focus on three priority areas:
How increased organizational transparency can improve external perceptions about the
POSPD;
Supporting the POSPD's move away from a traditional police response on homelessness
on Port property; and
The need for the POSPD to focus on internal procedural justice to address a perception
of inequity experienced by many, but particularly Non-White employees.
Over 25% of recommendations focus on increasing equity through internal
procedural justice trainings and processes.
418
8
Select Recommendations Include:
Use of Force
De-escalation policy should be updated to make de-escalation attempts
mandatory, when possible, and to add de-escalation tactics
Create a standing use of force review committee
Oversight & Accountability
Create a quarterly public safety committee to bring interested stakeholders
together
Enhance internal procedural justice at the POSPD
Develop protocols between POSPD, Customer Services, and Human
Resources on the handling of complaints and compliments about police
officers
419
9
Select Recommendations, Con't.
Mutual Aid
Take the lead on updating current mutual aid agreements
Add levels of approval required before deploying resources for mutual aid
Budget, Roles and Equipment
Develop first responder alternatives to homelessness that do not involve armed POSPD
officers
Implement recommended policies to guide the use of body-worn cameras
Advocacy
Incorporate new legislative requirements into policy and training
Continue to engage with key stakeholders and elected officials on emerging state and
federal legislation.
420
10
Select Recommendations, Con't.
Diversity in Recruitment & Hiring
Develop a police officer recruitment plan aimed at increasing the number of
Hispanic/Latinx police officers
Update race/ethnic identification data for employees, benchmarks to use for
assessing availability and utilization, and consolidate data sources
Training & Development
Increase transparency around promotional and special team processes
Commence a campaign of internal procedural justice training; continue to
train de-escalation as a core engagement philosophy; continue to stress a
"guardian mentality" in trainings
421
11
Task Force Members
1. Marin Burnett Port of Seattle, Strategic Initiatives, Strategic Planning Manager
2. Milton Ellis Port of Seattle, Labor Relations, Labor Relations Manager
3. Sean Gillebo Port of Seattle Police Department, Commander
4. Monisha Harrell Equal Rights Washington, Chair
5. John Hayes Seattle Police Department, Captain
6. Jesse Johnson Washington State Representative
7. Deborah Jacobs Consultant, Police Accountability
8. Anne Levinson Retired Judge, Deputy Mayor, and police accountability Oversight Auditor
9. Sofia Mayo Port of Seattle, Central Procurement Office, Senior Manager Service Agreements
10. Sam Pailca Microsoft, Associate General Counsel, Office of Legal Compliance; Board Member of ACLU Washington
11. Eric Schinfeld Port of Seattle, External Affairs, Senior Manager, Federal and International Government Relations
12. Ericka Singh Port of Seattle Human Resources, Talent Acquisition Manager
13. Jessica Sullivan REI, Corporate Security and Emergency Manager; retired Captain, King County Sheriff's Office
14. Veronica Valdez Port of Seattle, Commission Office, Commission Specialist
15. Michelle Woodrow Teamsters, Local 117, President and Executive Director
16. Shaunie Wheeler Teamsters, Local 117, Political & Legislative Director Joint Council of Teamsters No. 28
422
12
Questions?
423
13
APPENDIX
424
14
Engagement Activities
Outreach to Community Groups POSPD Survey / Engagement
Shilshole Bay Marina residents and Dock Captains 111 surveys received out of
Duwamish Valley Stakeholders approximately 151 employees
Harbor Island Stakeholders
Drayage Truck Companies and Drivers Remote listening sessions for
officers, sergeants,
Aviation Community Stakeholders
commanders, and non-
Airport Customer Service/Pathfinders commissioned employees.
Homelessness advocates/service providers
City of Sea-Tac government
425
15
Identified Processes That Support Equity Goals
De-escalation
Procedural Justice
Recognition of the sanctity of human life
Accountability system that provides checks and balances
Acknowledge value of continuous improvement
426
16
Task Force Leadership
Task Force Co-Chairs
Bookda Gheisar, Senior Director of Equity, Diversity and
Inclusion
Delmas Whittaker, Senior Manager of Fishing Vessel Services;
President of the Port's chapter of Blacks in Government (BIG)
Task Force Commissioners:
Commissioner Peter Steinbrueck
Commissioner Ryan Calkins
427
17
Consultant
21CP Solutions
Selected through a rigorous RFP process, 21CP was formed by members of President
Obama's Task Force on 21st Century Policing
21CP Solutions "helps cities and communities effectively tackle the challenges of
delivering safe, effective, just, and constitutional public safety services in the 21st
Century."
Role of consultant:
Conduct analysis of police department policies, practices and programs
Facilitate subcommittee meetings
Prepare reports, minutes and recommendations
428
18
Task Force Structure
Task Force Leadership
Co-Chairs and
Commissioners
Steinbrueck/Calkins
Task Force Staff
Marin Burnett
Task Force Eric Schinfeld
Veronica Valdez
Subcommittee Chairs:
Subcommittee Chairs: Subcommittee Chairs: Subcommittee Chairs: Subcommittee Chair:
Oversight, Subcommittee Chairs: Subcommittee Chair:
Diversity in Recruitment Training & Use-of-Force Budget, Roles and
Accountability, Racial Mutual Aid Advocacy
and Hiring Development Equipment
Equity and Civil Rights
Subcom mittee
Subcommittee D:
Subcommittee E:
Subcommittee A: Subcommittee B: Subcommittee C: Oversight, Subcommittee: F Subcommittee G:
Budget, Roles an
Diversity in Recruiting Training & Development Use-of-Force Accountability, Racial Mutual Aid Advocacy
Equipment
Equity and Civil Rights
Each member of the Task Force (excluding Commissioners, Co-Chairs and staffers) will lead a subcommittee
429
19
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Subcommittees F,H
UPDATED (12.9.20) Policing Motion Subcommittees C,D,E,G Subcommittees A,B
18 weeks 9 weeks 6 weeks
Subcommittee Meeting structure 7-9 meets 3-5 meets 3-5 meets
Sept-Jan Feb-Apr Apr-May
Phase 2 recommendations to
Commission
Apr 27
Phase 1 Recommendations Phase 3 Recommendations
Task Force mtg Task Force mtg Task Force mtg Task Force mtg
Task Force mtg Task Force mtg Task Force mtg Task Force mtg Task Force mtg Task Force mtg
CDF CDF CDF CDF CDF CDF CDF CDF CDF AB AB AB AB EG EG EG EG FINAL RECS due to Commission
Task Force mtg
Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Tod ay
SubCom C - Use -of-Force Sep 8 - Jan 29
SubCom D - Ov ersight, Accountability & Civil Rights Sep 8 - Jan 29
SubCom F - Mu tual Aid Sep 8 - Jan 29
SubCom A - Div & Hiring Feb 8 - Apr 2
SubCom B - Training & Dev Feb 8 - Apr 2
SubCom E - Budget, Roles & Equip Apr 19 - May 31
SubCom G - Advocacy Apr 19 - May 31
Note: Due to anticipated variances in the complexity of certain issues, subcommittees have varying numbers of meetings. All timelines/dates are tentative. Subcommittees are
activated at their allotted start time but may be disbanded before or after the estimated dates depending on necessity. 430
RETURN TO AGENDA
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.