
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. _8c_ Page 3 of 5
Meeting Date: September 10, 2019
Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED
Alternative 1 – Cease security operations and services at maritime, real estate and Northwest
Seaport Alliance Properties.
Cost Implications: This would reduce annual expenditures by approximately $4 million per year.
However, this would be offset by the inability to receive certain vessels at Port of Seattle and
Northwest Seaport Alliance properties, as well as the potential increase in losses due to
criminal activity and damage to the reputation of the Port of Seattle and Northwest Seaport
Alliance.
Pros:
(1) Reduced annual security services contract expense.
Cons:
(1) Inability to comply with U.S. Coast Guard regulatory requirements
(2) Inability to assist with cruise ship operations at Terminal 91
(3) Significantly increase potential for criminal activities, vandalism, unauthorized
camping on Port of Seattle and Northwest Seaport Alliance properties
(4) Increased risk to insurance claims against the Port of Seattle.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 2 – Bring security services into Maritime staff management with direct hire Port of
Seattle Employees (FTE).
Cost Implications: Estimated $35M expense over same time period. In addition, this alternative
may add long term liability with associated FTE staffing.
Pros:
(1) Eliminates need for large contract
(2) Creates opportunities for deeper commitment to Port of Seattle by security personnel
(3) Allows for broader tasks for security personnel to be assigned collateral duties for
operations in addition to safety and security functions
(4) Provides potential point of entry into a public service career and point of talent
acquisition for the Port of Seattle
Cons:
(1) Significant additional recurring expense to the Port of Seattle over contracted services
(2) Lack of flexibility: Would lose significant flexibility in ability to change, reduce or
increase resources in a timely mater.
(3) Would add to additional long-term expenses to the Port of Seattle with associated FTE
staffing.
(4) Would reduce opportunities for small business contractor(s).
This is not the recommended alternative.