The CAI Economic Impacts Studies
The Port of Seattle’s 2025 SAMP NEPA EA Appendix K presents an economic impact study from Community Attributes, Inc, using 2018 data. In the analogous 2026 SAMP SEPA Draft EIS, the Port includes an updated version of the study, using 2025 data, and also conducted by CAI.
The 2018 version presents the results for each city on separate pages, while the updated version presents all cities on one page, making comparisons difficult. Here are side by side results, with important footnotes.
CAI Studies 2018 (2017 data) v 2025 (2023 data)
| City | Jobs 2017 | Jobs 2023 | Business Output 2017 | Business Output 2023 | Total Compensation 2017 | Total Compensation 2023 | Local Taxes 2017 | Local Taxes 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SeaTac | 26,300 | 26,220 | $6.4B | $7,349.5M | $1.7B | $1,944.0M | $26.8M | $1.36M |
| Tukwila | 4,200 | 3,470 | $483M | $584.8M | $188M | $178.5M | $4.2M | $2.08M |
| Federal Way | 3,900 | 2,120 | $440M | $358.9M | $183M | $121.5M | $3.5M | $2.24M |
| Des Moines | 1,200 | 1,550 | $126M | $251.8M | $59M | $82.3M | $1.0M | $1.69M |
| Burien | 1,400 | 710 | $157M | $115.0M | $66M | $37.9M | $1.4M | $0.23M |
| Normandy Park | 200 | 245 | $15M | $39.0M | $7M | $12.8M | $0.1M | $0.20M |
Sources: Port of Seattle, Sea-Tac International Airport Economic Impacts (August 2018, Community Attributes Inc.), city profile infographics pp. 29–34; Northwest Seaport Alliance, Port of Tacoma, and Port of Seattle Economic Impact Analysis, Appendix K, Exhibit 64, p. 47.
Notes:
1. 2017 figures reflects on-site airport activity only; 2023 combine on-site activity and visitor spending, so the comparison is not fully apples-to-apples. It therefore overstates the apparent 2023 gains somewhat, especially for SeaTac and Tukwila where visitor spending is a bigger share.
2. SeaTac and Federal Way's local tax numbers look wrong at a glance — dropping from $26.8M to $1.36M, and $3.5M to $2.24M, while jobs and output stay roughly flat or grow.
3. For SeaTac, the 2017 figure folds in parking tax which was renegotiated in their 2018 ILA with the Port of Seattle.
Why is the CAI Study so wrong?
It’s not built from audited transactions–receipts, payroll records, etc. It is a 2modeled estimate, built on the Washington Input-Output Model from the state Office of Financial Management. Even OFM’s own economists are upfront about the model’s limits. Trying to force a model designed for economies as large as nations and states down to small cities creates numbers you cannot trust.
Indirect and Induced
Two terms worth defining, because the study leans on them constantly. Indirect impacts are the businesses one step removed from the airport itself — a fuel supplier, a company that repairs ground equipment, a caterer’s linen service. Induced impacts are what happens after that: airport and supplier employees take their paychecks home and spend them on groceries, rent, and everything else that keeps a household running, and that spending ripples through the wider economy too. Add those two layers to the direct jobs and dollars on airport property, and the benefit side of the ledger gets to claim credit for economic activity happening miles away and several transactions removed from a single plane landing.
Compare that to most of the noise and pollution studies around Sea-Tac, handle costs. Noise gets measured at a monitor. Pollution gets measured at a sampling site. Both stop at, or near direct impact — the decibel reading, the particulate count. The indirect and induced harms: property values eroded blocks past the noise contour, elevated costs of services in cities, medical costs induced after years of disrupted sleep, productivity lost when children cannot concentrate in a classroom under the flight path are either poorly modeled or are not given any weight in decision making. The same three-layer logic that inflates the benefit side to reach every corner of the regional economy has no meaning on the cost side.
The CAI numbers are not made up. But the model represents the actual experience of near-airport cities about as well as the DNL65 correctly models noise impacts for individuals.
The obvious conclusion is that neither public harms or benefits are given sincere consideration in the decision making process.
Exhibit 62. Airport on-site activity, total economic and fiscal impacts by city, 2023
| City | Jobs | Business Output (mils 2023$) | Total Compensation (mils 2023$) | State Taxes (mils 2023$) | Local Taxes (mils 2023$) | Total Taxes (mils 2023$) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SeaTac | 21,470 | $6,625.5 | $1,721.6 | $16.57 | $0.71 | $17.28 |
| Seattle | 4,040 | $771.8 | $261.1 | $13.25 | $7.07 | $20.32 |
| Tacoma | 1,350 | $253.8 | $85.5 | $4.36 | $2.09 | $6.45 |
| Kent | 1,170 | $275.3 | $80.3 | $4.73 | $2.13 | $6.86 |
| Federal Way | 1,020 | $181.4 | $63.1 | $3.11 | $1.12 | $4.23 |
| Tukwila | 900 | $182.8 | $57.8 | $3.14 | $1.27 | $4.41 |
| Auburn | 850 | $181.0 | $56.0 | $3.12 | $1.35 | $4.46 |
| Renton | 770 | $184.3 | $50.9 | $3.16 | $1.37 | $4.53 |
| Bellevue | 670 | $125.5 | $43.8 | $2.15 | $0.98 | $3.13 |
| Puyallup | 630 | $115.5 | $39.7 | $1.98 | $0.71 | $2.70 |
Exhibit 63. Airport visitor spending, total economic and fiscal impacts by city, 2023
| City | Jobs | Business Output (mils 2023$) | Total Compensation (mils 2023$) | State Taxes (mils 2023$) | Local Taxes (mils 2023$) | Total Taxes (mils 2023$) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seattle | 22,040 | $3,459.3 | $1,188.3 | $34.48 | $17.80 | $52.28 |
| Tacoma | 13,550 | $2,082.3 | $705.0 | $16.24 | $6.47 | $22.72 |
| Bellevue | 5,540 | $821.8 | $326.1 | $8.05 | $3.14 | $11.19 |
| SeaTac | 4,750 | $724.0 | $222.5 | $5.28 | $0.65 | $5.93 |
| Tukwila | 2,570 | $402.0 | $120.7 | $3.21 | $0.81 | $4.02 |
| Bothell | 2,530 | $363.6 | $145.3 | $2.83 | $0.42 | $3.25 |
| Redmond | 2,200 | $344.0 | $134.6 | $3.91 | $1.08 | $4.99 |
| Kent | 1,880 | $342.0 | $104.1 | $4.32 | $1.81 | $6.13 |
| Sammamish | 1,870 | $273.3 | $108.4 | $2.43 | $0.48 | $2.90 |
| Woodinville | 1,580 | $228.5 | $91.2 | $1.67 | $0.20 | $1.87 |
Sources: Northwest Seaport Alliance, Port of Tacoma, and Port of Seattle Economic Impact Analysis, Appendix K, Exhibits 62 and 63, p. 46. Note: Total Taxes column reflects direct plus secondary fiscal impacts. No equivalent city-by-city breakout by activity type (on-site vs. visitor spending) appears in the 2018 report.
2Marc Baldwin, Ph.D., Office of Financial Management, “Input-Output Fundamentals,” presentation to the Washington House Ways & Means Committee, September 22, 2011.