Senate Ways and Means Comments on SB5652/SB6240

Honorable Committee Members:I write today on behalf of Sea-Tac Noise.Info (STNI), advocates for our airport communities, and representing over 1,300 homeowners with bad Port Packages. Please accept our comments concerning both SB 5652 and SB 6240, which must be considered as one package.

We want to be clear that in principle, we support their three main objectives: insisting that the Port of Seattle take action on sound insulation retrofits known as Port Packages, move forward on essential research on aviation emissions, and provide funding to address aviation’s environmental harms.

However, as written, both bills are problematic. We are concerned that if passed as written, they may actually delay or even diminish progress towards their intended goals. We ask that you consider a much simpler, more targeted approach that achieves those worthy objectives now, in this year of the Sustainable Airport Master Plan—the year airport communities need action most.

Concerns

SB 5652 calls for a 26-person committee, considering a 92-square-mile region, to work on pilot projects through 2027, followed by an audit of sound insulation in 2029. It seems to hold the Port of Seattle responsible for a variety of impacts within that entire area, despite sharing an airspace with another significant airport (Boeing Field/KCIA) – which is also undergoing its own master planning processes (Vision 2045/Part 150.) This ambition is unnecessary.

Give researchers what they need

In UWDEOHS, we have some of the best researchers on the planet. They already know the work that needs doing and there are already useful summaries of the literature. What they have always lacked is a guaranteed funding stream—something the state has long provided for issues like water quality—and then the time to devote those resources towards their work. Frankly, what they do not need are more meetings.

Sound insulation as a right

We’ve visited hundreds of homes with bad Port Packages and we know what they need. The Port of Seattle has audited their contracting program (2019), spent two years studying homes–essentially to assign ‘worthiness’—and gotten nowhere. A review of any Equity Index shows that nearly every home that has received a Port Package should already be considered eligible. Given the terrible warranties, the dramatic increase in operations, the pollution, shifting demographics, and socioeconomic decline, the reality is that almost every home under the flight path should qualify now. In 2018, San Francisco International Airport developed a simple, first-come-first-served approach for every sound insulation system. What stymied their efforts was not the program, but a lack of funds. SB 6240 addresses that. We have to establish Port Package updates as a right and stop allowing false narratives of ‘worthiness’ to enable even more delays.

Airport impacts are not aviation impacts

A twenty six member committee deciding grant programs across 92-square-miles disregards a fundamental truth: the interests and needs of each community inside such a large area very different. Fence line cities not only experience the most intense noise, their declining budgets reflect the ongoing negative effects of property buyouts and an eroding tax base. Despite promises of jobs and growth, prosperity continues to go elsewhere. Cities cannot protect public health if they cannot afford basic services. Airport impacts–the impacts on cities must finally be acknowledged and accounted for in legislation as much as the individual impacts of noise and air quality.

Funding

We strongly support the concept of progressive funding and the proposed mechanism is innovative. But it needs careful review to ensure compliance with FAA revenue diversion restrictions. The FAA has made clear that they want all airport-generated revenue to stay on the airport.

It is also not unreasonable to question whether these funds  might come at the expense of other, legitimate pollution mitigation projects.

And while these bills require the Port to expend funds, they do not require the Port to identify new funding sources or increase its own financial commitment. Ironically, due largely to the strength of airport operations, the Port of Seattle is financially healthier than every other state, county, or local agencies. A better funding model should be considered, one more like the Climate Commitment Act, where there is an actual cost assigned to the negative impacts from which the Port (and State) benefit.

Recommendations

We recommend the following amendments—which meet the needs of all stakeholders, but better fit the legislative agenda of Burien, Des Moines and SeaTac—the people that will always be most impacted by Sea-Tac Airport.

1. Insist that the Port of Seattle begin spending at least $2,000,000 annually towards Port Package retrofits starting in 2026. Encourage adoption of an improved program. Save money. End years of unnecessary delay.
2. Provide a guaranteed annual funding stream for aviation impacts research.
3. Create a committee, with one member from the Port, one from each municipality (that would assign a seat to Beacon Hill), and UWDEOHS, PSCAA, and King County Health—to facilitate information sharing and develop a shared strategy towards ongoing uses of RCW53 funds. Let each City determine what its residents need most to address the variety of impacts from Sea-Tac.
4. Add backstop language to SB 6240 to ensure other funding sources should a conflict arise with the FAA, and encourage the Port of Seattle to develop its own progressive funding sources.

Sincerely,