Meeting Notes
Preliminary Meeting Notes
(Reviewed by the Chair—Pending Study Group Approval)
Date: Thursday, February 3, 2000
Location: Fourth Presbyterian Church, Louisville, Kentucky
Attendees: Following is a list of project participants in attendance at the Noise Compatibility Study Group (the Study Group) meeting:
Dorn Crawford, Director, Regional Airport Authority
Sam Rechter, Director, Regional Airport Authority
Jim DeLong, General Manager, Regional Airport Authority
Robert Brown, Regional Airport Authority
Rande Swann, Regional Airport Authority
Lt. Col. Tom Marks, Kentucky Air National Guard, Study Group Chair
Dan Bevarly, Mo’ Better Marketing Communications
Pamela Schott, Mo’ Better Marketing Communications
DISCUSSION SYNOPSIS—PRE-MEETING BRIEFING
The pre-briefing to the Study Group meeting was delivered by Dorn Crawford, Board of Directors, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County (RAA). Mr. Crawford discussed the goals and objectives of this Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study (the Study); and he explained the study organization, process, and role of the Study Group and Study Group committees.
DISCUSSION SYNOPSIS—STUDY GROUP MEETING #4
The meeting was called to order by Lt. Col. Tom Marks, Study Group Chair, at 7:15 p.m. A motion to adopt the meeting agenda was approved. Another motion to adopt the notes from Study Group Meeting #4 was approved.
Lt. Col. Marks then called Dorn Crawford, representing the Chair of the Metrics Committee, to the podium. Mr. Crawford summarized the committee’s response to the noise abatement measures and strategies presented by the consultant team to the Study Group at Meeting #4. Mr. Crawford stated that the committee was looking for a one-to-one match of criteria for measuring the effectiveness of proposed abatement measures, and was generally dissatisfied with what was presented by the consultant team. Mr. Crawford noted that measures considered by the consultant team were not consistent with those proposed by the Study Group. Mr. Crawford reminded the Study Group that noise reduction is the key concern, and is quantitative. Mr. Crawford requested that the consultant team provide hard data to determine and evaluate whether a proposed measure is feasible, and ensure that the effectiveness of each measure can be evaluated.
Lt. Col. Marks then called Denny Rued, Co-Chair of the Noise Monitoring Committee, to the podium. Mr. Rued began his presentation by stating that the DNL 65 is receiving a lot of attention, and stated that the Study Group would be remiss if the effects of the DNL 60 were not also taken into consideration. Mr. Rued also stated that the Study Group should emphasize continuous noise monitoring for compliance with recommended measures. He pointed out that the previous Part 150 study did not include a plan to deal with residents who are dissatisfied with the Airport, and stated that this should not happen again.
Lt. Col. Marks then called Dorn Crawford, Chair of the Navigation Committee, to return to the podium. Mr. Crawford began by stating that the screening criteria used by the consultant team to assess noise abatement measures did not match the criteria recommended by the Study Group. He also stated that the committee found the criteria used by the consultant team too general and very confusing. The Study Group, he suggested, wants to ensure that they get their money's worth for every assessment dollar spent. Mr. Crawford then charged the consultant team to clarify why measures were labeled as "not recommended". He also stated the committee was not satisfied with previous explanations offered and required solid feedback.
Mr. Crawford then presented an itemization of what he called "Bear Traps," referring specifically to ideas or terminology used by the consultant team that the committee finds confusing, imprecise, and not well-defined. Mr. Crawford asserted that no closure on these measures is possible until further information and clarification are provided.
Lt. Col. Marks then spoke as the Chair of the New Technologies Committee. Lt. Col. Marks began by acknowledging that there are disconnects between the consultant team and the Study Group, and charged the consultant team to provide solid data for the Group’s consideration. He added that the Group needs to consider technological hardware, not just procedures alone. He added that if technological hardware is not yet available, the Group needs documentation of proposed measures so that they are not forgotten when technology becomes available. Lt. Col. Marks then proposed that the consultant team consider navigational aids currently in use in Europe and re-examine current procedures.
Lt. Col. Marks then called Mike Clancey, Co-Chair of the Environmental Committee, to the podium. Mr. Clancey stated that the committee would like the consultant team to provide an itemized evaluation of the proposed noise abatement strategies and to provide further input on what strategies will and will not work.
Environmental Committee Co-Chair, Peter Levermore, then addressed the Group to respond to the numerous complaints regarding residue found on residential roofs and siding. Mr. Levermore encouraged interested members to sign up for a soot sample analysis, and stated that the RAA has indicated that funds are available for this work.
Lt. Col. Marks then called Marnie Varela, Chair of the Sensitive Facilities Committee, to the podium. Ms. Varela stated that the committee believes the analysis of Study Group-recommended noise abatement measures prepared by the consultant team was satisfactory. However, the committee was unclear as to why their motion to prohibit further Airport expansion and development until mitigation efforts are complete was not recommended. Ms. Varela charged the consultant team to review this recommendation and provide an acceptable response.
Lt. Col. Marks then called Don Conrad, Chair of the Relocation Liaison Committee, to the podium. Mr. Conrad challenged the Study Group to forget about noise abatement and mitigation, and focus on relocation. He proposed that the RAA immediately fund relocation or soundproofing for the 2,500 families living within the DNL 65 as soon as possible. Mr. Conrad stated that his use of the word "mitigation" in a statement made in December 1999 has put the relocation process two months behind. Relocation, he asserted, needs immediate consideration
Lt. Col. Marks then called Steve Lambert, Co-Chair of the Public Information Committee, to the podium. Mr. Lambert noted that the solutions proposed by the consultant team seemed to be concerned only with alleviating noise within the DNL 65. Mr. Lambert suggested that the consultant team and Study Group take a more holisitic approach to noise reduction. Mr. Lambert also stated that the solutions demonstrated a clear preference on behalf of the consultant team towards maximizing Airport operations, rather than the recommendations made by the Study Group. Mr. Lambert stated that the Public Information Committee disagrees with this approach. He then stated that the daytime contraflow strategy was not a Study Group initiative. Mr. Lambert requested that Study Group members register their complaints on the Project Information Line and Project Website. He also encouraged Study Group members to put up posters with noise complaint contact information in visible spots throughout the community. He concluded by stating that the Study Group needs to know that the FAA will not fund soundproofing of homes within the DNL 65 unless proper procedures and requirements are met. He added that the committee felt that the Study Group had been misled by previous information given on this matter.
Lt. Col. Marks then took the podium to present recommendations from the Strategic Planning Committee, calling for further explanation and clarification from the Consultants regarding specific measurements as recommended by the committee.
Lt. Col. Marks then called Denny Rued back to the podium. Mr. Rued offered the Group a personal proposal for consideration that would require UPS to purchase the homes of those residents who are on the RAA list for relocation, thus freeing the RAA to focus its relocation efforts and funds on others further down on the list. Mr. Rued welcomed improvements and feedback from the Study Group, stating that the objective of the proposal is to speed up relocation and to complete efforts to move residents whose names appear on the RAA list.
Lt. Col. Marks then asked for Study Group consensus on committee responses to the consultant team’s presentation made at Study Group Meeting #4 on January 13, 2000. A consensus was reached. (A consolidated report was subsequently compiled.)
The Study Group then discussed and developed a consensus on the list of screening criteria and noise mitigation measures to be presented to the consultant team for further analysis. It was decided that the committee reports presented during the evening would suffice as input to compose consolidated Study Group guidance.
Lt. Col. Marks then opened the floor to questions.
Several Study Group members re-emphasized points raised by committee chairs, and/or requested further clarification of some items. Depending on the nature of the question, Study Group members were directed to respective committee chairs for responses.
Lt. Col. Marks then called for a discussion of other business.
One Study Group member informed the group of a phone number for the Kentucky General Assembly (1-800-372-7181) to call to voice support for additional State funding for residential relocation.
Lt. Col. Marks announced that Study Group Meeting #5 is tentatively scheduled for April 13, 2000.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:38 p.m.