From: Sea-Tac Noise.Info
To: The Honorable Tina Orwall, Senator 33rd Legislative District of Washington State

January 3, 2025

Senator Orwall,

We've noted recent statements from the City of SeaTac (and other local electeds) regarding the 'unique' nature of their 2018 ILA with the Port of Seattle. By that, we assume they mean 'unrepeatable'. STNI is often struck by how many airport myths take on a life of their own. We urge your office to re-read section 7.6 (below), as it provides a model for much needed legislative reform to RCW 53 to benefit all communities under the flight path.

Although the agreement does mention public safety as a primary function of the 1Community Relief Contribution (CRC), the language does not actually constrain its use in any way. In reviewing both Port of Seattle and City of SeaTac budgets over the past seven years, the money is considered a general expenditure and has, in fact, been used as such over time. Some other practical aspects of the agreement not mentioned:

• The source of that $1.4M, like every other form of community relief (ACE, SKCF), comes from the Property Tax Levy.
• According to both the Port and the King County Assessor, the median property owner in King County pays about $1 a year to fund the CRC.
• In every other case (e.g., ACE, SKCF), the Port will argue that community relief is heavily constrained according to specific uses in RCW 53. They frequently mention the State Constitution's Gift of Public Funds Doctrine, limiting such programs to small amounts and private entities.

We believe the language of section 7.6.2 of the CRC was tailored as much to avoid this roadblock in RCW 53, as to provide any specific use of funds.

To be clear: we in no way begrudge the City of SeaTac this agreement. In fact, we mention it because it is a particularly elegant way to partially re-balance the benefits of the airport to King County with the negative impacts to residents of their city. However, we do find the characterization of the agreement as 'unique' to be arbitrary to say the least. Given your advocacy, you know that public safety concerns around the airport extend far beyond 200th or 160th. As do all the other negative impacts generated by Sea-Tac; or any major airport.

Those impacts are varied and complex. We frequently mention water pollution because the airport plateau is the source of almost every creek in the region and the core of the Third Runway fight concerned mitigating a long history of terrible industrial water pollution. But those mitigations had larger goals that were never fully achieved. As one example, the original Des Moines Creek Basin Plan included projects for tree, salmon and habitat restoration down to the Des Moines Beach Park. New pollutants (like PFAS) have since been revealed as serious ongoing potential community concerns. Yet in recent years the plan has been dramatically scaled back to what is now essentially surface water maintenance. An ongoing relief program could be developed to fund those projects according to their original intent for future generations.

Our point is that there are many potential forms of relief for impacted communities: sound insulation and air quality certainly, but also land, water, public safety, and economic development. Attempting to craft legislation to address each of these diverse issues individually is both impractical and unnecessary, as in most cases each community already has subject matter experts in place.

Instead, we are asking you to simply make it easier for the Port to spend its own money. This would empower our communities to create programs targeted to our specific aviation-related impacts. By reforming RCW 53, we can make highly tailored agreements possible for all aviation-impacted communities, just as the City of SeaTac ILA has done.

The State budget is now more challenging than at any time in recent memory. In contrast, the Port of Seattle has fully recovered from COVID and even with the capital expenses of the SAMP is on its way to record aviation earnings both now and for the foreseeable future. Actually, those capital expenses, which are financed in part by our property taxes, will enable those increased earnings.

To summarize: we're not asking for new funds from the state or any complex new programs. We're asking for a simple legislative reform that allows the Port to fulfill its promise from 1976:

"As we do better, you'll do better."

The Port/SeaTac ILA was one step forward. By reforming RCW 53, you can make such agreements possible for all aviation-impacted communities and help truly fulfill that promise.

Miles Cameron, JC Harris, Steve McFerrin, Paula Rodriguez, Íde Ní Shúilleabháin
…on behalf of STNI

Brian Davis – Vice Chair Burien Airport Committee
Joe Dusenberry – Sea-Tac Stakeholder Advisory Round Table (Des Moines)
Jeff Harbaugh – Sea-Tac Stakeholder Advisory Round Table (Burien)
Barbara McMichael (Des Moines)
Stuart Jenner (Normandy Park)