City describes aircraft noise as a nuisance
Read machine-generated transcript
At its March 27, 2025 Economic Development Committee meeting, Des Moines councilmembers declined to recommend that the City hire a consultant to re-establish a sound code to mitigate aircraft noise.
Originally, the FAA and Port of Seattle provided free insulation for thousands of existing homes in Des Moines on the condition that new construction meet a similar noise reduction standard.
This agenda item came after a year of dithering about restoring the City’s long-abandoned sound ordinance, originally adopted in 2007 (Ordinance 1407) but repealed in 2012 (Ordinance 1539). The original code required that new buildings within certain noise zones around Sea-Tac Airport provide similar noise reduction to those that had received FAA noise mitigation under Part 150.
The City dropped that requirement, effectively giving developers a discount—allowing them to offer “optional” sound packages for additional cost and avoiding the construction requirements expected in neighbor cities.
This meeting was the first discussion in over a decade to bring back those protections. But instead of discussing how to match the health, safety, and fairness standards of neighboring cities like Burien and SeaTac—both of which have retained sound codes—the focus was almost entirely on cost, and potential impacts for builders.
While the City’s memo acknowledged the existence of sound codes in Burien and SeaTac, apparently no effort was made to speak with officials in those cities—cities that continue to build despite their sound code requirements. If those requirements are so onerous, how are they able to build?
Ultimately, the committee failed to take even the first step: authorizing staff to engage a sound engineer to provide specific recommendations. Instead, they decided to make a few more phone calls and “come back in a few months.”
Our Take
“Budgets are moral documents”. No matter what any government says, you can tell how much it values something based on what it does.
City planners, building officials, and engineers are the front line in protecting people living under the flight path. These professionals should have airport expertise. By placing no the value on sound insulation it is obvious that no one in Des Moines does at the moment.
Committee members spoke of ‘mitigation’. The FAA has said repeatedly it will never pay to update systems installed outside their program–including equipment replaced by homeowners. Why should anyone under these circumstances?
Neither the benefits of sound insulation, or the negative impacts of noise were mentioned, except in passing. The vast majority of the discussion–from both electeds and staff–concerned ‘cost’. The mayor went so far as to say, “residents will hate us if we do this.”
Sound insulation is about public health. It should be considered standard equipment, not a luxury. People who experience chronic exposure to aircraft noise will have poorer life outcomes–including well-documented health impacts such as sleep disruption, cardiovascular and cognitive impacts.
There have been major improvements in cost-effective technologies. The circular argument of “We can’t act without more research!” sounds like something the Port might say. If it’s so cost-prohibitive, how have Burien and SeaTac managed?
Besides, we do not allow home construction which compromises on other aspects of public health in order to save a few dollars. Instead, we educate builders and homeowners as to their value. When the City describes noise as ‘nuisance’, it’s assigning that aspect of public health a value of zero.
Why should the Port, the State, or the FAA invest in any programs if Des Moines values noise as zero?
**35:37****Councilmember Jeremy Nutting:** So now that brings us to our sound code discussion. We have about 20 minutes left.
**Staff:** Thank you, Councilmember Nutting, and committee members. Just to quickly recap—I know you have the memo and you’ve read it—this meeting is really a continuation of the June 27th, 2024 meeting. We discussed initially what might need to happen in order to bring back a sound code like the one we originally had back in 2007 with Ordinance 1407.
I was tasked with doing a bit more research to figure out what’s going on in neighboring cities and to understand more about our own sound code and what it might take to update it. I don’t have a presentation, but I can summarize.
I included some history about why the sound code was repealed in 2012, and I also summarized my recommendations. The original sound code was written under the 2003 building and energy codes. Back then, for example, window U-factors (a measure of heat transfer) were higher. Lower U-factors mean better insulation, which indirectly affects sound insulation.
There have also been changes to insulation standards. Ceilings went from R38 to R60, and wall insulation now includes continuous insulation on the outside. However, building codes don’t regulate outside noise—they focus on interior noise, like between townhomes. There is an appendix regulating sound transfer between units, but not for exterior noise.
You can’t simply adapt listed wall assemblies for exterior noise mitigation without violating energy code or testing standards. That’s where a sound engineer or consultant would be extremely helpful. They could help us write a more modern code.
I reached out to two consultants. I’ve only received one response so far—from Coffman Engineers—at the request of the City Manager. I asked for a rough estimate based on our scope. They quoted $20,000. Of course, that could rise depending on what we ask them to do. I’ll get another quote if desired.
So that’s the overall view of my memo and research. I’m prepared for your questions. Really, I’m looking for direction: is this committee interested in delving deeper into this and getting a consultant involved to revise the sound code?
**Councilmember:** Well, after reading through this, I got a little stressed out. I’m wondering—is this going to be burdensome or helpful to our residents or interested builders? It increases time and expense in building, repairing, and maintaining.
I was told that since we’re mostly built out in the City of Des Moines, the impact might be limited. But there was a bullet point that mentioned compliance methods for both new and existing structures. I wrote a little note: “Our residents are going to hate us for this.”
So I’m concerned about overburdening remodeling projects. If we do move forward, do we have the option of saying we want this for new construction but not for remodeling? I’m ambivalent.
We’re working so hard on mitigation efforts, especially related to sound. But this approach places the burden on residents and investors. I would really like to see if we could engage the Port to help with this. Maybe that’s a whole other conversation, but it feels like we’re asking our residents to bear the brunt of this.
**Staff:** If I can just comment on that—this is not a one-size-fits-all situation. Dan can bring back options and a sort of menu for the council to consider. When we both talked about this, I don’t think it was anyone’s intent to make it hard to remodel a bathroom. “Remodel” is a big term.
This would really only kick in for major projects. Most of this is external, new construction. We can come back with options and informed information. A consultant could say, “These five regulations would make a big difference in quality of life but wouldn’t be a huge cost burden.”
**Councilmember Steinmetz:** Yeah, I have similar concerns about who pays for this. It seems appropriate to look into it for new construction or significant remodels involving a new exterior wall. But internal remodels? Moving interior walls? That doesn’t make sense to me.
It all depends on how much this adds to the cost. Are we talking about five simple changes that won’t add $20,000 to each project? Or will every project increase by $20,000 or more? That could stop a lot of projects.
We don’t want to slow down residential density or economic development. But we do need to address the reality of living near an airport. There are health impacts too—people trying to sleep through noise. It’s not easy, but I’d like more information.
**Staff:** That helps. My understanding is that we repealed the original code partly due to cost concerns. Am I hearing correctly that we’re only considering new construction and major remodels?
**Councilmember:** Yes, that’s right.
**Councilmember Nutting:** I have a couple of comments. I did a major remodel in 2008—added a second story. The STC code affected me. I had to double-sheet my roof with thicker OSB, double-sheet exterior walls, hat-channel the upper floor, and use 5/8″ drywall.
My HVAC fans had to be redesigned with bends. I had to use special windows that cost 40% more. Overall, it raised my cost by 30-40%.
Commercial buildings already follow certain STC codes, especially multi-family in downtown Seattle. I’m okay with that. But I have real concerns about burdening builders in a city that needs economic development. It stifles business. I’m not interested in hearing more.
**Staff:** For clarity, the consultant estimate was $20,000, not $100,000.
**Councilmember Nutting:** We’re still trying to find funds for tangible things we actually need. I don’t think it’s prudent to spend on this now. It’s a challenge for homeowners and developers alike.
**Staff:** So we’re looking for direction. Do you want us to move forward with this $20,000 and engage a consultant for feedback on potential code amendments?
**Councilmember:** You heard my thoughts. I’ve got lots of questions. I don’t know enough about it. I would like to go ahead. That would be my choice.
**Mayor:** So I’m the deciding vote. After reading it, I feel uneasy. I wrote in big letters: “We are placing mitigation on the backs of residents and investors.”
Somebody refresh my memory—how did this come back up?
**Staff:** There was a vote from the dais to remand it to committee for review.
**Mayor:** That was about a year ago, right?
**Staff:** Yes, shortly after the vote.
**Mayor:** This is airport-related. Another question: are we currently compliant with national standards?
**Staff:** Yes, we are. This would be above and beyond, based on our exposure to aircraft noise.
**Mayor:** Can we bring it back in six months and reconsider? I’m not really in favor of it right now. We’ve got other consultants doing other work, and we’re stretched thin.
**Staff:** I recommend we consider exploring it. The mayor and Councilmember Nutting made valid points. But better housing products built to better standards improve the overall value of a community. People prefer living there because airport noise is less of a nuisance.
We also can’t ask the Port to do more for us when we don’t have our own standards in place. Also, very little new construction is left. So this won’t sway things much. Other airport communities have these ordinances. It would be good to ask them what impact it has had.
**Mayor:** The only thing pushing me to reconsider is how much research has already gone into this. I respect your leadership. $20,000 is a small number in some conversations. I also know some other councilmembers will criticize us publicly if we don’t move forward.
**Staff:** I didn’t speak directly to the consultant. Dan did. But I’d like to have that conversation myself and explain how built out we are. That might help us decide if this is really worth it. If we had large tracts of land to be developed, I’d highly recommend it. But that’s not where Des Moines is right now.
**Staff:** I mentioned it to the consultant. They helped Seattle with sound ordinances—not the same issues we have, but environmental sound. They seemed familiar and qualified. I told them we’re mostly built out and asked about addressing just the easy stuff for major remodels.
**Councilmember:** If I can suggest: (1) Have that conversation with the consultant. (2) Call the other cities that have sound codes and ask what the impact has been on their new buildings and major remodels. Let’s get better data. That will help us make the decision.
We’re not making a decision based on decibels. We need to understand the scope and the financial impact. If we can do that and come back in a couple months, great.
**Staff:** For clarity, this originally affected all buildings with occupancy—commercial and residential. Commercial buildings already have some of these mitigations built in.
**Staff:** You don’t have to go blanket with this. You can pick and choose. That’s something to think about.
**Mayor:** Let’s get more information, see if we can reduce that $20,000, and come back.
**Staff:** That works.
**Councilmember Nutting:** All right. Staff, thank you for all your hard work. We’ve got five minutes until council meeting. Do I have a motion to adjourn?
**Councilmembers:** So moved. Second.
**Mayor:** We are adjourned. Thank you, everyone. See you in a few minutes.
This is a machine-generated transcript generated on the fly by Google/Youtube/AI. Accuracy totally not guaranteed. Provided only as a convenience and to help people with disabilities. Caveat lector!