Last update: 09/03/19. Another ‘work in progress’. We’re constantly updating this list.
Here is a list of legislation we are actively proposing:
Municipal: Airport Communications
We feel that the local communities need a full-time professional advocate for aviation issues. The current approach of reacting to each airport expansion in an ad hoc manner has only led to a series of failures and resentments. Discussion.
State: RCW 53.54.030 (5)
Title 53 governs Port Districts like the Port Of Seattle. Currently, §54.030 (5) limits homes from receiving mitigation or compensation if their existing Port Package has failed. It also creates almost impossible barriers to homeowners receiving upgrades to existing Port Packages. We recommend that this entire subsection be removed.
State: RCW 53.54.030 (3)
Title 53 governs Port Districts like the Port Of Seattle. Currently, §54.030 (3) demands that home owners provide a perpetual Avigation Easement in order to receive sound mitigation. This also prevents homeowners from receiving compensation of any kind as a result of damage incurred by airport operations. As absurd as it may sound, the prevailing legal thought is that if an airplane fell on your property you would not be able to sue the Port for damages for which they were partially responsible. We recommend that this entire subsection be removed.
State: RCW 53.54.040
Title 53 governs Port Districts like the Port Of Seattle. Currently, §54.040 limits the amount of funding the Port may collect for noise mitigation projects by insisting on a voter-approved initiative for issuing bonds for any such activities. This makes it all but impossible for the Port to use more of its own (non-AIP Grant money) to fund noise mitigation projects.
State: RCW 29A.92.040
Title 29A governs all aspects of elections in the State Of Washington. Currently, §29A.92.040 says that Port Districts with at-large Commission seats ( like the Port Of Seattle) can voluntarily decide to switch to a District-based voting system. However, the mechanism for a voluntary switch is not specified. The only specifics pertain to making sure the public is involved in the districting plan to make sure it is equitable. There is also another section which provides for a court-ordered switch to a district-based Commission, but that would only occur if there was a voting-rights violation of a ‘protected class’. Unfortunately, people living under the flight path do not currently qualify.
Now the situation is even more complicated because even if the Port Commission woke up one morning and decided to switch to a district-based system, five commissioners would hardly be equitable to provide specific coverage for our airport communities. In other words, there would still be far too few slices in the pie to make our voices heard.
State legislators have recognized this problem and have annually proposed legislation to increase the Port Commission size to nine members. Unfortunately, no Port Commissioner supports that idea.
The Aviation Noise and Capacity Act Of 1990 governs airport noise. We propose several small changes to tie the release of Airport Improvement Grants to the responsiveness of airport operators to community concerns.
Federal: Passenger Facility Charge
Passenger Facility Charges are collected as a fee on every ticket sold. We recommend that a portion of those fees be directed kicked back to the communities surrounding each airport in the form of block grants to be used specifically for remediating airport impacts. Discussion.
Legislation In Process
Here is a list of legislation in process that we are actively supporting:
SB5370 became law in January. It provides for a commission to site a second regional airport by 2040.