Meeting Notes


BACK to Meetings Notes      

Meeting #5
Preliminary Meeting Notes

August 23, 2001

Location: Fourth Presbyterian Church, Louisville, Kentucky

Attendees: Following is a list of project participants in attendance at the Noise Compatibility Study Group meeting:

    J. Michael Brown, Chairman, Board of Directors, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County

    Mike Clancey, Study Group Chair

    Dorn Crawford, Audubon Park Council Member, Board of Directors, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County

    Jim DeLong, General Manager, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County

    Bob Slattery, Noise Officer, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County

    Rande Swann, Public Relations Director, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County

    Lt. Col. Tom Marks, Kentucky Air National Guard, Former Study Group Chair

    Eric Bernhardt, Leigh Fisher Associates

    Bill Willkie, Leigh Fisher Associates

    Lyndsay Tabler, Mo’ Better Marketing

Discussion Synopsis- Study Group Meeting #5

The meeting was called to order by Lieutenant Colonel Tom Marks, the outgoing Study Group Chair, at 6:40 PM. A motion to adopt the meeting agenda was approved. A motion for approval of notes from Study Group Meeting #4 was also approved.

Lieutenant Colonel Tom Marks

Lt. Col. Marks recognized a number of community representatives including: Delores Delahanty B-District Commissioner; Representative Jim Wayne, Kentucky House of Representatives; Rindy Russell, Judge Rebecca Jackson’s Office; Mary Rose Evans, Parkway Village Commissioner; Dorn Crawford, Audubon Park Council Member and RAA Board Member; Dan Seum, Kentucky State Senator; Alderman Dan Johnson, City of Louisville; and Representative Anne Northup, Congresswoman for the Third District.

Lt. Col. Marks commented that the last Study Group meeting took place in January of 2000. He stated that the study has taken longer than originally anticipated because a number of Study Group committees have generated questions requiring collection of additional data and completion of special studies. Committees have also identified additional scenarios to be investigated. Additional time was also taken to ensure that the techniques used in gathering data were reliable.

Lt. Col. Marks introduced Mike Clancey, the incoming Chair for this portion of the Study. Mr. Clancey then introduced Mr. J. Michael, Brown, Chairman of the Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County.

J. Michael Brown

Mr. Brown introduced the Honorable Anne Northup. Mr. Brown explained that the Federal Government allocates money to fund capital improvements at the Airport, the Part 150 Study, and the relocation program; however, because the money is allocated does not mean the Airport sees those funds in the form of a check. Mr. Brown attributed the success the RAA has had in securing funds in the last couple of years to the help given by Anne Northup, who helped to increase the Airport’s share by $20 million over the last couple of years.

Representative Anne Northup

Representative Northup explained that although many people in the community benefit from the Airport, she recognized that it has taken a long time to address the needs and concerns of the people who live in the neighborhoods surrounding the Airport. She stated that she has faith in the community, the State, and the board’s intention to meet the needs of the Airport’s neighborhoods, but in order to do so, they need money. Representative Northup stated that there should have been a better effort by the State to fund the continued relocation of the neighbors of the Airport. For years, Congress and the United States Government have used our airport funds and taxes for our airports around this county for other purposes. These funds are tacked on tickets and the fuel used in the airplanes. Unfortunately, it has become commonplace for money to be allocated for programs other than airports. In the last couple of years, Congress has required that every tax dollar collected for the purpose of paying for airports, must be spent on airports.

Representative Northup noted that there is a $5 million per year cap on the funding Congress would allocate to the Louisville International Airport (LIA), which meant it could take as long as 20 to 30 years for the Airport to serve the people it was so eager to serve. This cap is based on the formula used to dispense the funds, which is based on the number of passengers who fly in and out of the airport. The idea was-- the busier the airport, the more funds it would receive. Unfortunately, many of the airplanes that fly in and out of LIA don’t carry passengers, they carry cargo. An exception to this formula would be an extraordinary help to an airport that may not have a high volume of passengers, but needs enhanced funds to pay for the wear and tear on the airport, pay for guidance systems, and to meet the needs of the neighbors. Representative Northup announced an appropriation bill that was passed in the House and has been sent to the Senate. The appropriation bill has $15 million in it purely for the Airport to move more aggressively to address the challenges of the neighborhoods that surround the Airport. Each year she believes she will be able to continue that money until they have fully addressed these challenges. She stated that the State should share in the responsibility for funding. She pledged that she would work hard to keep the $15 million appropriated through the Senate. Representative Northup concluded by stating that while many people benefit from the Airport, there is also more widespread concern for you and your neighborhoods than you probably know.

Following her statement, Representative Northup agreed to take questions from the attendees.

    • One participant asked when would the airplanes be vet tested like our cars are tested? The participant said that the gas as well as the noise that comes from the planes is pollution. Cars don’t put out as much pollution as planes. Congresswoman Northup replied that she is not on the authorizing committee that studies the safety issues or the emissions issues. She has agreed to look into the answers

    • One participant commented that she sounded sincere; however, it seemed as if she was talking more to the board and for the board to get the money and not to participants who are taxpayers. Congresswoman Northup replied that she only knows one person on the board. She felt she has spent as much time with the neighborhoods and the legitimate rights they have to get their questions answered. There has been an equal frustration on the side of the board, but she wants to see a way to solve every one’s problem and not take sides. Congresswoman Northup explained that she does not have the power over what a board decides, but she can see that it gets the money and resources to meet the needs of the neighborhoods. The participant then stated that he believed those funds were there to help UPS.

    • Another participant asked Northup how many years she’s slept with earplugs in her ears because of airplane noise. The participant wanted to know why these issues weren’t thought of beforehand? Congresswoman Northup replied that she should ask the leaders who have failed in this. The participant should ask the city that made the decision, and the State Legislators that haven’t made this issue a priority.

    • The participant commented that the waste from the airplanes falls on the roof, and you have to wipe the black soot off of your lawn furniture. Congresswoman Northup replied that she thought her office had visited and documented the participant’s four-plex and business, and her office is concerned. Congresswoman Northup said it is examples like the participants that has concerned and moved them to aggressively work to address the noise and the other inconveniences the neighborhood suffers. Realizing the airport will be there years from now, she’s asking what can be done to help this community today.

Bob Slattery

    • Mr. Bob Slattery, the new Noise Officer, gave a report of the complaints received since the last meeting in January 2000. He mentioned that there were quick responses to each of the questions in the back of the handout. It is part of his job to make sure that every complaint is handled on an individual basis. Slattery provided a summary of noise complaints received.

    • One participant commented that he didn’t see anything that addressed the situation of when one received the noise from the airplane engines sitting on the ground in the early morning. The participant thought it might be a different legal principle when you have an aircraft sitting on the ground pointing a loud engine at your home. Mr. Slattery stated that the participant’s question would be addressed in the consultant’s presentation. When Mr. Slattery receives a ground noise complaint it is usually logged under the nighttime noise.

    • The participant asked if there had been any discussion on a barrier construction to deal with the ground noise. Slattery stated that the consultants would be addressing that question later that night.

    • One participant asked how she could obtain a form to file a complaint about the damages to her home. Mr. Slattery explained that the first step was to file a noise complaint as the first step. Slattery added that complaints could be received by calling him at 368-6524 ext. 112 or by using the direct line: 375-4546. The handout had a brief summary of the complaints received; if anyone wants to see a full listing of all the complaints received they’re posted on the Web site on

Mike Clancey

Mr. Clancey stated that it has taken a year and half to get to this point in the Noise Study. There have been extra runs of models to get answers the FAA will require. He stressed that now is the time for people to speak up during this meeting and to become a part of a committee. Mr. Clancey also provided a table showing a breakdown of each carrier and the number of landings it conducted at LIA in July, 2001. Mr. Clancey emphasized that the Study Group will have 30 days from the date of this meeting to choose the noise abatement measures to be included in the recommended program. Mr. Clancey then introduce Mr. Bill Willkie of Leigh Fisher Associates to present the technical analyses prepared by the consultant team.

Discussion Synopsis – Study Group Meeting #5

Bill Willkie

Mr. Willkie presented a summary of the study’s milestones up to the present. He noted that the goal of this meeting was to present the analysis of the noise abatement measures previously recommended by the study group, and to show how these measures individually and in combination would change the pattern of noise. The purpose of this information is to provide information the community can use to determine which measures or combination of measures make the most sense.

Study Schedule. The study team is trying to adhere to a schedule that will give everyone some answers by the end of this year. Before the next step is taken, input is needed from the committees. The consultant team will then take the measures selected by the study group and prepare a revised set of noise contours that will show how the measures for the final program will work together. The resulting noise contours will be establish the area to which noise-mitigation measures will be applied in the next phase of the study. This next phase will consider noise mitigation measures, which consist of actions to reduce the effects of noise on the ground once you have done everything you can in the air. Potential noise-mitigation measures may include continued residential acquisition, insulation programs, and construction of noise berms.

Base Case Noise 2005 Conditions. The base case represents the noise conditions that would be expected if no changes were made in the noise abatement program. Potential noise abatement programs are compared to the base case to determine their benefits. Mr. Willkie pointed out the solid black line indicating the day/night noise level or DNL 65 noise contour that represents the level of noise the Federal Government and the FAA in particular have identified as being significant. He stated that the FAA will focus on the areas inside the area of significant noise impact in approving noise abatement measures and in justifying federal funding. He then indicated another set of lines representing the DNL 60. Mr. Willkie noted that the areas beyond the DNL 60 contour are also shown as grid points to provide a broader idea of how changes in the Airport’s noise abatement procedures might affect areas at greater distances from the Airport. Mr. Willkie noted that a substantial portion of the LIA’s total noise is generated by nighttime operations, which is the single most important distinction between LIA and other airports of a similar size. He explained that nighttime noise is especially important in considering the effects on the DNL contours because, under the DNL methodology each night operation generates as much noise as 10 daytime operations.

Study Group Alternatives. The alternatives that were given to them for analysis consisted of many individual measures. Each alternative is built around a specific runway-use program. The current runway-use program in effect at LIA emphasizes use of the east runway as a noise-abatement runway. Mr. Willkie proceeded to present the annual runway use, noise contours, and grid analyses, for the three noise abatement alternatives identified by the study group. These descriptions, runway use tables, noise contours, and grid analyses were provided in the meeting handout and are available on the Project Website and at the Project Information Centers. He then gave a quick summary of population impacts referring to the 65 DNL contour as follows.

    • On the north side of the Airport, the more you shift aircraft activity to the west runway, the fewer people are in the significant noise contour.

    • To the south of the Airport, changes in noise exposure are primarily affected by flight track divergence.

    • All the alternatives would reduce noise exposure compared to the base case.

Analysis of Individual Measures. Supplemental noise contours were prepared to illustrate the effects of the individual measures contained in the 3 alternatives identified by the study group. These additional noise analyses allow the consultant to demonstrate to the FAA what the benefits of individual measures would be. This demonstration is important because the FAA will approve or disapprove individual measures. The Study Group will have to communicate why a measure was recommended, in view of its costs and benefits.

Additional Scenarios. The Study Group had requested the consultant team to investigate 3 additional scenarios. Each of the following scenarios was examined individually and shown in conjunction with each of the 3 alternatives.

    • A 100% reduction in contraflow exceptions

    • An additional 500-foot displacement on Runway 17R

    • The effect of increasing the average tailwind acceptance threshold from 5 knots to 7 knots.

Comparison of Measures to Study Goals. Mr. Willkie gave a preliminary assessment of how the list of measures compare with the goals and objectives established earlier in the study. Those goals are: Conformance with study goals and Study Group issues; reductions to non-compatible land use (the stated purpose of FAR part 150 and what the FAA is looking for); whether or not it would require FAR Part 161 study to implement; consistency with FAA and Air Traffic Control Standards (ATCT) standards; and feasibility of implementation. This comparison was provided in the meeting handout and is available on the Project Website and at the Project Information Centers.

Noise Berm. A noise berm, or barrier has been proposed along Louisville Avenue. The berm would be about 2500 feet long, and would be situated at the northwestern corner of the Airport. The purpose of the berm would primarily be to reduce the noise from aircraft starting take-off role. Mr. Willkie also discussed the potential benefits of a noise berm in terms of perceived noise reduction. For a noise barrier to be effective it has to be very close to either the noise source itself or the receiver. While site constraint limit the location of the berm, Mr. Willkie noted that the proposed berm would provide noticeable benefits in some areas. He then outlined which areas or zones would receive the greatest amount of noise reduction.

Recommended Noise Abatement Program. The next step in the study process is selection of a preferred noise-abatement program. The meeting to select a noise-abatement program will be 5A on September 20, 2001 at the Fourth Presbyterian Church. Mr. Willkie encouraged everyone to join committees because that is the most effective way to ensure you’re a part of the answer that comes out of this Study. After the mitigation program is selected it will be assembled into another set of contours. Options will be presented again, and that program as it is developed by the Study Group assembled is called a Noise Compatibility Program. The Noise Compatibility Program will be added to the various maps that have been developed as noise-exposure maps, and that whole package goes to the FAA for approval. The FAA approval is a two-step process. In the first step they will review the maps and determine whether the maps were prepared in accordance with the requirements of the rule. If they are, they will accept those maps. Once the maps are accepted they will then start the process of reviewing the Noise Compatibility Program. Once they’ve accepted the maps they have 180 days to either approve or disapprove the program, and they will either approve or disapprove the program measure by measure. If the measure involves changes to flight procedures then they reserve the right to take longer than 180 days.

Potential Noise Mitigation Measures. Mr. Willkie briefly discussed the three basic types of noise mitigation measures: remedial, compensatory, and preventive.

    • Remedial measures typically include acquisition and relocation, which has been the preferred approach in Louisville, or insulation. In addition, measures such as transaction assistance and purchase assurance have been implemented in other areas.

    • Compensatory measures doesn’t directly address noise, but provide some form of compensation or payment for noise.

    • Preventive measures typically focus on land use planning and other powers of local government to prevent noise sensitive land uses from being developed in the noise contours.

Historically, most programs have focused on remedial measures. FAA provides funding for such measures that are approved parts of a Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program. FAA also strongly supports preventive measures, at least in part because they don’t cost the Federal government very much money. In the past FAA has been least enthusiastic about compensatory measures because they don’t get rid of the problem one way or another. Mr. Willkie then gave a summary of the noise-mitigation screening criteria and the mitigation matrix. The bulleted list of criteria and the matrix can be seen in the meeting handout.

Comments and Responses.

Following the technical presentation, Mr. Clancey opened the floor for questions or comments on the material presented.

    • One participant asked if all the noise abatement programs have some aspect of flight procedure or air traffic control procedure? Bill Willkie said no, if the measure requires a pilot to carry out a non-standard procedure, something that is not a typical approach-depart procedure, then FAA reserves the right to take as much time as necessary to determine if the proposed measure is feasible. In such cases, FAA may run flight simulations, or get the major users together to see if the program can be carried out in an acceptable manner and the pilots are comfortable with the procedure. Runway use and flight-track management doesn’t usually fall into these exceptions.

    • One participant asked if the FAA disapproves a particular part of a measure, does the Study Group have the right to ask for a reconsideration or an appeal? Mr. Willkie explained that the FAA is the final arbiter on anything related to airport capacity and aviation safety. Typically, if you have a disagreement, which happens frequently, you try to convince the FAA that your program is acceptable or modify your program in such a way as to address their objections and work for a compromise. Another thing you have to consider is if the FAA disapprove a part of your program, and that part of your program is very important to other parts of your program, that becomes a part of your negotiation process.

    • One participant commented that it seemed like the University of Louisville was satisfied and mostly by incoming flights. You helped UPS a little bit by increasing the noise levels. The participant wanted to know if the three alternatives were acceptable to UPS? Were they in on the drawing of the noise contours? Mr. Willkie said he needed to ask the Study Group.

    • A participant put the following question out to a study group member. Was the University of Louisville and UPS in on the three alternatives? Was it their final say that they would accept the three alternatives? The study group member commented that representatives of those two groups have just as much right to participate as anyone else.

    • A participant asked if the maps were drawn with UPS and the University of Louisville in mind? Mr. Clancey told the participant they were not. The participant then asked why most the incoming flights during the day move U of L out of the noise level?

    • The same participant stated "What you did was increase the noise for the UPS at night. It’s common sense: You’ve increased the lines between 264 and Fern Valley Road." Mike Clancey asked what map he was referring to. The participant said to look at any of them. U of L has no noise at all during the day, and UPS gets more expanded noise at night. Mr. Willkie explained that the measures under consideration would not increase noise from UPS. The participant then commented that if the noise level hasn’t been expanded then it hasn’t been changed. Mr. Willkie said that is true, their total noise levels haven’t been changed.

    • A participant said they aren’t discussing the take-off lights at night.
    • A participant asked the Study Group if UPS and U of L were sitting in on the meeting that gave input on the alternatives. Mr. Clancey said the University of Louisville was not a part of that meeting, but that UPS did have people there.

    • One participant suggested that the page numbers should be put on the slides so that the participants will know what page in their handout corresponds with the slide that is being shown. Mr. Willkie thought that was a good suggestion.

    • The participant asked what part controls the UPS morning standing, running airplanes from 12 midnight till 6 AM? In other words, how do we control the number of airplanes by UPS that are running from 12 midnight till 6 AM or later? They don’t take off right away so they’re polluting the air and our sleep. Can anything be done about this? Mr. Willkie asked if she was saying that the engines are being run when there doesn’t appear to be a need or an obvious reason why they’re being run. They’re not landing, or taxing, they’re just on the ramp. The participant confirmed that that was her question.

    • The participant also wanted to know how you decrease the number of UPS flights and how do we decrease the one that are coming from Beijing? How do we object and get the plane from Beijing that’s a double airbus from coming in and get it eliminated? Mr. Willkie explained that any restriction on the use of the Airport would need to go through the Part 161 process, which is essentially a benefit cost analysis. It is a very difficult case to make that the noise benefits are comparable or exceed the economic costs. The question regarding what can be done on the ramp has not been investigated yet. It would require some more information from UPS to determine what kind of activity is causing that. It is very unlikely that an improvement in the engine noise on the ramp would show up that much on the noise contours, but if there is a way to reduce the noise that is operationally acceptable to the users, then perhaps an improved management system could be developed. It doesn’t necessarily have to be done in the context with this study; this could be something that is done with the Noise Abatement Officer and in coordination with UPS to see if there is some way to manage that more effectively.

    • One participant commented that they’ve discussed the idea to construct a berm for years, and somehow it got included in the Part 150 noise compatibility study. The only other hard data he has seen came in the form of a memo from Eric Bernhardt . Mr. Willkie commented that Eric presented information that one of the sub-consultants developed through noise monitoring and through analysis of barrier performance.

    • A participant explained that he thought that he remembered that data had to do with a 15ft. berm. Mr. Willkie explained that two heights were being considered: 10-ft. and a 15-ft. It is our understanding that the proposal on the table was for a 10-ft. berm – so that’s why it was presented at this time.

    • A participant asked if an additional study could be conducted looking at a 15-or-20ft. berm. He knows there are berms that go up to 50-ft. Mr. Willkie said that the analysis addressed a specific proposal put on the table prior to the study. That is a question that could be brought up with the RAA. He would feel a little out of place saying what should be done in this case. The consultants have presented the analysis of what they understand the concept to be. Obviously, one can look at any height.

    • The participant asked if it was in their scope of work. Mr. Willkie explained that it was not; however, some analysis has been done that can be drawn on. It is something that the RAA and the community should discuss since it pre-dates his involvement in developing the measure. Jim DeLong explained that the berm analysis was not a part of the 150 Study. When he met with the Beechmont neighborhood he said he was prepared to move forward with the 10-ft. berm. Beechmont said to not move forward with the berm until an analysis was done to see if it would be effective. The RAA is prepared to move immediately on the 10-ft berm. Mr. Willkie said that the analysis does show some benefits, obviously the closer you are the better it works.

    • One participant commented that the three alternatives to varying degrees shift the runway usage from the east runway to the west runway. As someone who lives close to the west runway, it is crucial to any acceptance he may have that something is included in alternatives 1,2, and 3 to offset approach to runway 17R. It concerns him that the easement of measures Mr. Willkie mentioned is not used at any of the other airports – at Washington National it is planned, but not used. Mr. Willkie explained that a close-in approach turn is used at Washington National, although it was not implemented because of noise abatement, but because of the restricted airspace associated with the White House.

    • The same participant noted that if the FAA does not approve the measure; it would shift noise to a heavily populated area. The participant asked that if Mr. Willkie could be a little more specific, would the FAA accept this or do you feel there is a big chance they wouldn’t and what would that do to the rest of the plan? Mr. Willkie said the rest of the plan needs to be crafted in such a way that if any measure is not accepted you have a course of action that you find acceptable as a community. The study group may say that it would not propose that measure (runway use) alone, but only in combination with another measure (offset approach). What would probably happen is the FAA would want to consult with users and with air traffic control specialists to determine its feasibility.

    • The same participant then asked that as part of the submission process from the RAA to the FAA would a preemptive kind of procedure of getting that input and submitting it with the preferred plan be approved? Essentially UPS has said it could accept it, he’s not sure if the other airlines have said anything but that might be a way of anticipating that kind of question from the FAA. Mr. Willkie stated that he recommends including all of that kind of information, but he still doesn’t feel comfortable in saying what the outcome will be. The participant said he saw that it was very important to all three of their alternatives. Mr. Willkie explained that when the alternatives are presented to the FAA, it is good to have operational support from the users, the air traffic control tower, and the community, all of which will have some weight.

    • One participant asked about the patterns on a noise contour found in the back of the meeting handout. The patterns showing incoming and outgoing was in effect at the present time. Mr. Bernhardt said that the patterns on that particular contour were proposed. It’s not that far off from what is happening now; there isn’t much variance.

    • The same participant pointed out where he lived on the map and said that he gets UPS traffic all the time and that’s not even close to the pattern. Mr. Slattery explained the RAA now has a flight-track-monitoring system and he is willing to take those calls.

    • One participant said that is the closest house to the direct flight on the north side, which is the east runway. He can’t take the noise anymore so he’s decided to take financial matters in his own hands and is adding insulation. Can he get reimbursed if he keeps all his financial records? Will there be future help with triple-paned windows, etc? Mr. Willkie said that the eligibility for the grant program is not retroactive. Mr. Clancey agreed and said if the participant spends any money on it now, it is his loss. Mr. Willkie said that if he spends any money on it now, he should talk to a contractor familiar with acoustical insulation, because the kind of insulation used for thermal purposes is not especially effective in reducing noise. For instance, triple-paned windows frequently have thin glass and thin airspace – which is good for thermal insulation but for acoustical insulation you want thick glass and/or thick airspace. You want acoustical glazing not thermal glazing. The same thing goes for other insulation products, what you want is density rather than fluff. If you’re going to do it look into acoustical properties, you should look for its STC-Sound Transmission Classification. Jim DeLong said he would be wise to keep good records, because it is conceivable that the RAA Board might be willing to contribute retroactively if you can demonstrate that you’ve achieved certain things. But he can’t say for certain that they would.

    • The same participant asked that if he delayed this process was there any timetable as to when compensation might occur for this? Mr. DeLong explained that the board committed to complete the relocation of about 800 homes that fell within the 65 DNL back in 1990. That will take at least 2_ more years, but no more than 3 years, assuming current funding. At the end of that period, based on the outcome of this Part 150 analysis, the board will consider the policy question of whether it wants to soundproof other homes.

    • One participant asked if everyone living north or east of the airport had to wait 2 _ years before a decision was made on whether the Airport would buy them out. Mr. DeLong stated that the problem is availability of money. They’d like to help residents tomorrow. Mr. DeLong referred to a resident named Jerry who can share his frustration on the length of time it has taken to relocate those people at Minor Lane Heights or Edgewood or elsewhere. The reason Congresswoman Northup came was to explain the importance of dollars. If she is successful getting more money, the RAA can do it more quickly – it is directly related to dollar availability.

    • One participant stated that the Airport should have thought of that before they started. "UPS and the airlines are making all this money and we can’t even get enough rest to get up and go to work the next day."

    • One participant stated that planes fly directly over his house. What concerns him is that he lives in the 60 DNL area on the "opposite" side of Snyder. He’s not a part of any existing program. He was told that if he lived on the north side of the Gene Snyder he would be taken care of. He went to the first meeting and was told that if he were affected they would soundproof his house and so forth. He says he’s on the verge of being in the area, but if he’s not in the area, will his house or his area be termed blighted? If he goes to sell his place later on will it be considered a blighted area? You’re talking about re-zoning. It’s possible to be standing there with a $200,000.00 home and not be able to get rid of it. Mr. Willkie stated that he could not recall any case in this country that noise at that level has resulted in an area being designated as blighted. When studying the effect of noise on real-estate property it’s hard to argue that there isn’t some effect, but statistically it’s has a much smaller effect than other factors. For areas exposed to noise levels that you hardly see off-airport anymore, like the 80 or 75 DNL, the FAA had always recommended acquisition because it was so difficult to achieve compatibility any other way.

    • One participant commented that he lives to the east, and says that they don’t call his area blighted, but they call the housing in that area " a highly un-resaleable area." They went to the tax assessor and said their property has been devaluated by where they live and what is around them. The tax assessor put a CDU factor on it, which reduces taxes.

Closing Remarks

Mr. Clancey emphasized again that now is the time to get on one of the committees. The committees will be meeting soon; if you’re not sure when or if you don’t have access to the Internet site, call the RAA to see when the next meeting is. We’re at that point where we’re taking the different alternatives and deciding what will work out best for us. He reminded everyone that, when looking at the maps, don’t think there isn’t help for those who live on the other side of the line. The government doesn’t look at it that way. They realize several blocks over from that line, they’re getting that noise too.

Kentucky State Representative Jim Wayne mentioned that the Airport Neighbors Alliance is working with the RAA to make sure the number-one priority in Frankfort in January for the State government budget is $20 million to be put into the relocation program of which Jim DeLong spoke. The quicker the airport can get the money to relocate the people who are designated to be relocated, the quicker they can move to the next phase, where homes may need soundproofing. He encouraged everyone to work with Senator Seum and him. Write letters to the Governor, write letters to all of the Jefferson County Delegation that goes to Frankfort. It’s very important that everyone gets behind this and make this the number-one priority for the budget for Jefferson County in 2002.


back to top