Meeting Notes : Sensitive Facilities 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.
Pending Committee Approval
October 2, 2001
At 7:00 p.m., some of the Sensitive Facilities Committee members attended a joint meeting with the Navigation Committee to review and discuss the information on the three alternatives presented by Leigh Fisher Associates. At 8:15, it was decided the members of Sensitive Facilities would be dismissed and meet in another conference room to further discuss the alternatives as they related to sensitive facilities.
Present were: Donna Lawlor, Bob Slattery, Ben Broderson, Kim McGee, Mary Rose Evans and Julia Schweri.
Donna Lawlor stated she had received a letter from Mitchell Payne, who was unable to attend tonight’s meeting, reserving the right to provide comments and feedback pertaining to UofL's position. After discussion, it was decided to have another meeting next Thursday, October 11th at 7:00 p.m. at the RAA offices. Kim McGee will mail notices to Mr. Payne at UofL, Mr. Chuck Fleischer with JCPS and a representative of the school system within the catholic archdiocese. All other members on the current member list will be notified by e:mail, phone or letter. Mr. Slattery stated he had delivered to Mr. Payne the handouts from the Working Group meeting when the 3 alternatives were explained to the group.
Members reviewed the maps of the three alternatives and the chart describing the various groups/institutions effected by each. Figures were provided as to numbers effected, such as population/land area/households/sensitive facilities, etc. As our goal is to consider the total community by reviewing how all the Sensitive Facilities are effected, our discussion favored alternative 3. We noticed the 60 dnl does not differ amongst the 3 options and the numbers of facilities effected are greatly reduced from current base plan to option 3.
Donna and Mary Rose confirmed we should have our presentation ready for the Consultant Screening and Oversight meeting on 10/15 at 6:00 p.m., with the presentation to the study group meeting on 10/18.
After our additional meeting next Thursday, we should be able to reach a consensus for presentation.
Meeting was adjourned at 9:30.
At 7:00 p.m., some of the Sensitive Facilities Committee members attended a joint meeting with the Navigation Committee to review and discuss the information on the three alternatives presented by Leigh Fisher Associates. At 8:15, it was decided the members of Sensitive Facilities would be dismissed and meet in another conference room to further discuss the alternatives as they related to sensitive facilities.
Present were: Donna Lawlor, Bob Slattery, Ben Broderson, Kim McGee, Mary Rose Evans and Julia Schweri.
Donna Lawlor stated she had received a letter from Mitchell Payne, who was unable to attend tonight’s meeting, reserving the right to provide comments and feedback pertaining to UofL's position. After discussion, it was decided to have another meeting next Thursday, October 11th at 7:00 p.m. at the RAA offices. Kim McGee will mail notices to Mr. Payne at UofL, Mr. Chuck Fleischer with JCPS and a representative of the school system within the catholic archdiocese. All other members on the current member list will be notified by e:mail, phone or letter. Mr. Slattery stated he had delivered to Mr. Payne the handouts from the Working Group meeting when the 3 alternatives were explained to the group.
Members reviewed the maps of the three alternatives and the chart describing the various groups/institutions effected by each. Figures were provided as to numbers effected, such as population/land area/households/sensitive facilities, etc. As our goal is to consider the total community by reviewing how all the Sensitive Facilities are effected, our discussion favored alternative 3. We noticed the 60 dnl does not differ amongst the 3 options and the numbers of facilities effected are greatly reduced from current base plan to option 3.
Donna and Mary Rose confirmed we should have our presentation ready for the Consultant Screening and Oversight meeting on 10/15 at 6:00 p.m., with the presentation to the study group meeting on 10/18.
After our additional meeting next Thursday, we should be able to reach a consensus for presentation.
Meeting was adjourned at 9:30.