
COMMISSION AGENDA
T. Yoshitani, Chief Executive Officer
June 8, 2011
Page 2 of 4
the Port Commission was formally presented with staff’s recommendation, received public testimony,
confirmed the selection of Puget Sound Dispatch, and authorized the Chief Executive Officer to award
the contract to Puget Sound Dispatch. Pursuant to that delegation of authority, Port staff proceeded to
negotiate final terms with Puget Sound Dispatch, and CEO Yoshitani executed a final agreement on
August 6, 2010.
STITA was dissatisfied with the RFP process and award and commenced suit against the Port. STITA
has asserted claims against the Port in two separate legal actions. In the first lawsuit,
STITA’s primary
claim was that the Port exceeded its authority under Section 14.08.120 of the Revised Code of
Washington. In that case, STITA obtained a stay from the Court of Appeals that prevented the Port
from signing a contract with Puget Sound Dispatch. The Port ultimately prevailed in the Court of
Appeals, and the injunction was lifted on August 5, 2010, by order of the Supreme Court of Washington
when it refused to accept review of the claim. In the second case,
STITA has leveled a variety of
additional claims. Among them, STITA alleges that CEO Yoshitani exceeded the authority delegated by
the Port Commission on December 15, 2009. As a result of several summary judgment orders in that
case, the allegations related to the CEO’s authority are all that remain for decision in the trial court.
Those allegations center on the differences between a draft agreement attached to the request for
proposals for on-demand taxi service and the final, executed concession agreement. A document
reflecting all of the changes between that draft agreement and the agreement executed by the Chief
Executive Officer is attached as Exhibit A.
In negotiating with Puget Sound Dispatch following the December 15, 2009 award and delegation of
authority, Port staff was guided by the principles outlined in the memo requesting commission action
and during the presentation on December 15, 2009:
Maintain safe, efficient service with maximum five-minute wait times.
Operate an environmentally superior fleet and reduce deadheading.
Provide economic benefit to taxi associations, operators, drivers and the Port.
Standardize taxi rules and regulations within the Region to the greatest extent possible.
Port staff, including the Chief Executive Officer, believe that none of the changes to the agreement were
material to these principles or the RFP award. Indeed, the revenue, wait-time, green fleet, and
deadheading commitments made by Puget Sound Dispatch – which commitments formed the basis for
its award – remain in place and in full force under the contract as executed.
Without going through the executed agreement line-by-line, the changes from the draft agreement
generally fall into two categories: (i) those requested by Puget Sound Dispatch in response to the Port’s
invitation for comment on the draft agreement in the request for proposals
and (ii) those necessitated by
the injunction obtained by STITA.
Port counsel has been consistent in this position since the argument
was first raised by STITA in June 2010.
The lawsuit was captioned Seattle-Tacoma International Taxi Association v. Port of Seattle, et al. Although the Court of
Appeals previously issued a decision in the Port’s favor on June 4, 2010, the case is again before the Court of Appeals on an
issue of whether the Port is entitled to bond damages from the injunction. That appeal will not be affected by this action.
The lawsuit is captioned Rainier Dispatch, LLC v. Port of Seattle, et al.
These primarily include the changes in Sections 3.I., 4.B., 4.G., 6.C., 7.E. and 9 of the executed agreement.
These primarily include the changes in Sections 1, 2.J., 4.A.of the executed agreement and Section 6.C. of the Operating
Instructions attached to the agreement.