Port Commission passes Port Package update pilot program 24-04

Historic order to assess and repair sound insulation systems passes 5-0

At today’s regular meeting, the Port Commission voted unanimously to approve Order 24-04: Sound  Insulation Repair-and-Replacement, creating a five year pilot program to assess the current stock of Port Packages and to provide $5,000,000 to provide repair and replacement of systems that are found to have ‘failed’.

Comments from several of the Commissioners were enthusiastic.

• Toshiko Hasegawa emphasized that this was a ‘first step’ and hoped that its success will lead to a much larger program funded at the Federal level.
• Commission Calkins asked two important questions:
  • How much does a new Port Package cost?
  • Are there ways to use this money to accomplish its goals, outside the ‘repair/replace’ model.
• Commissioner Felleman noted that the cost of an update will not necessarily be as expensive as a new system. Recognized Sea-Tac Noise.Info for ‘nagging’ the Port to take action.
• Everyone acknowledged Commission President Mohamed as the prime mover of this legislation,

Port of Seattle Press Release

Analysis

We could not agree more with Commissioner Hasegawa’s comments. As we’ve said all along, this is an ‘audition’ to get the real investors engaged–namely the United States Congress, which funded the original sound insulation program for all airports. At least some of the reluctance of both  Congress and the State of Washington to fund an update program comes down this:

You’re asking us to send you a second batch of money for a program that you did not manage properly in the first place?

This pilot program will show governments with the funding capacity that the Port can do this well.

Commissioner Calkins rightly asked about the total cost of a new Port Package. It costs a lot because a really good sound insulation system is, indeed, a system. It lasts for many decades because not only is the right equipment expensive, but proper HVAC design is not free.

However, Commissioner Felleman was also correct to point out that a lot of those ‘new’ costs are not necessarily part of an update program. For example, a sound test, which is time-consuming and costs at least $5,000, should be unnecessary since the original program did not call for one. Also, much of the legal work that is necessary to providing a new system may not be necessary for an update. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, many homes will not require a complete replacement.

Commissioner Calkins asked what might be the most interesting question. Is there a way to use this money more efficiently, but outside the repair/replacement model to improve the value of a home? In other words, on a home valued at $400,000 due to various other construction needs, does it make sense to put $100,000 into a sound insulation system? Perhaps there are more productive ways (besides ‘windows’) to help that home, while still achieving the goals of improving the noise reduction/indoor air quality.

Our take

This really is a historic day. It is the first time in many decades that the Port has been willing to spend money voluntarily on impacts directly related to airport operations. Noise. Pollution. Socio-economics. Since the 80’s the Port’s attempts to address community concerns have consisted of three approaches:

• Trickle down economics: ; the Port creates jobs and growth!
• Substitution: The Port is doing tree planting! Arts funding!
• Optics: the Sea-Tac Airport Round table.

But until today, literally no money to address those direct impacts. At least not, and this is important, voluntarily. Since 1979, every dollar the Port has spent on direct community concerns over has required compulsion. Law suits.

So this is a big deal. This program is a potential way to move forward without the constant blame and conflict. But at the same time, we do not want to get ahead of ourselves. There are a lot of mistakes to correct, and Port Packages are only one.

Now what?

The commissioners have obviously done some thinking on this issues, which is great because it’s super-complex and as we take pains to note, the Commission has hundreds of important issues to deal with every month.

We will continue to advocate for the simplest possible implementation strategy and one that aligns most closely with current FAA guidelines–even if it means leaving some very worthy candidate homes behind.

For us, this must be a tryout. Order 24-04 is, above all, a start-up and a five year audition. This program must be conducted so that, after five years, it attracts the real investor, the Federal government, to take over. That must always be the guiding star, even if local politics might tend to move in a slightly different direction.

The worst possible outcome would be for this program to help a certain number of homeowners here, but not be considered attractive enough to be voted for by a majority of Federal electeds, people with very different politics from our own.

The perfect must not be the enemy of the very good.