Meeting Notes : Environmental Issues Committee

Committee notes reflect the views and opinions of the committee members and not necessarily those of the Noise Compatibility Study Group, Coordinating Council, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County, or the Consultant Team.
back to NOTES       1/27/00
(As Approved)

Denny Rued
Mike Clancey
Perrie Combs
Mary Rose Evans
Emily Rose Evans
Pete Levermore

Call to order by committee chair Mike Clancey @ 6:35 p.m.

Pete Levermore was asked to record meeting notes.

Review of agenda for this meeting, prepared by Denny Rued, was approved by all present.

Denny Rued suggested the group elect a co-chair as we sometimes have schedule conflicts and a co-chair may allow for the group to better maintain activity and contribute to the part 150 process. Pete Levermore was nominated and by group consensus the nomination was approved. Pete accepted the nomination and said he will do his best to be objective in working with the group in this position (as chair Mike Clancey already has done).

Previous committee meeting notes were reviewed and accepted as submitted.

Screenings of noise abatement measures/strategies as presented during the last public meeting were reviewed.

    • Mike Clancey reviewed the definition of noise abatement for the group – essentially these are changes or measures taken in the air to reduce the noise levels on the ground.

    • It was mentioned that the cross-referenced notations that were to be provided by the Airport’s consultant had not yet been posted for the measures and screening procedures handout. These cross-references should make the understanding of the chart easier.

    • Contraflow during daytime hours was felt to have minimal benefit and was therefore thought to be not worthwhile to pursue.

    • Equal distributions of arrivals are acceptable only if it is equitable to both sides. A non-equitable solution would significantly raise someone’s noise level while another’s is only diminished somewhat. An example of what would not be equitable would be the following: Someone presently falls within the 66 Ldn is lowered to 64 Ldn with the recommended measures. As a result of the same steps someone who presently falls within a 55Ldn may be raised up to a 64 Ldn level.

    • If we agree to look at preferential use of 17R-35L at night, as a reciprocal, we should eliminate the 15-degree divergence on 17R (taking off to the south). This would prevent negative impact (increased dB’s) to Fairdale and the forest under this area.

    • The group support flight tracking systems and many of the other measures mentioned.

    • Because 60-65 Ldn is still an uncomfortable level of noise it is suggested that local (non-federal) funds be sought to assist neighbors that fall in these areas.

    • It was proposed that the Environmental Committee spend little more time on this area, as other committees are spending more time on it and covering it in depth. The Environmental group typically echoes their findings.

A proposal was reviewed for a potential solution to equitably resolve the noise issue. It was discussed in some detail and asked to whether it would be appropriate to present at the upcoming public meeting (Feb.3). It was suggested that the proposal be titled as a "Concerned Citizens Draft Proposal". While it was acknowledged that the process had not yet had a chance to make its own recommendations, it was still the consensus to present this proposal during the next meeting.

Screening of noise mitigation measures as presented during the last public meeting.

    • Mike reminded us that noise mitigation measures are steps that are taken on the ground to reduce the level of noise.

    • Want to elaborate on what an easement purchase is. Could it be an easement lease instead? (recurring penalty fee versus one time)

    • It was suggested that Mike Clancey contact the Public Information subcommittees with regard to making it clear to individuals what the reimbursement policy is, or is likely to be, on items purchased in advance, like new windows, etc.

    • Could there be tax policies, or more appropriately, tax breaks, for those impacted down to the 60 Ldn level. Tax breaks could include PVA (Property Valuation Administration) taxes and income taxes.

    • Mitigation should include a noise staff and forums that regularly give out public information.

    • All in all, it was felt that the consultant did a good job in this area.

Sampling of roof deposits was discussed. The airport (RAA) provided results of the few samples that have been done to date. The airport has funding left in the portion of the budget dedicated for this study. We should let people know that if they want to have their roof sampled, they should give us their name and address. Results can be distributed during later public meetings. We should make an effort to map the results and samples to be sure we get a good distribution in the surrounding airport community.

The next environmental committee meeting is scheduled for Tuesday Feb. 8th, 2000 from 6:30 PM – 9:00 PM.


back to top