BAC SP Hr 6168 Presentation And Notes 0002

RE: Aviation Impacted Communities Act Feedbnk Meeting August 18, 2019 at 9:25 PM Bervar, Lyndall , Brian Wilson larrycripe@comcast.net, She shebrush @gmail.com Good evening Lyndatl, While away this weekend, I made comments on the draft legislation; but since I cannot edit the pdf bill, I’m listing comments below by pages and line numbers: Page 2, 1ines 10-11: Add new language.,.,"Administrator shall acknowledge each community requesting such designation by a list published in the federal register." Page 2, 1ines 12-17: Very problematic language; perhaps a conflict resolution provision needs to be added because not all communities think monolithically. Perhaps the majority within a community or resolved by the governing body? Page 2, 1ines 20-21 : Substitute "governing body" for community (?) and "section 2" for "section 1." 3. lines 1-6: The existing group who has held this position previously and by state law (RCW 47.80.020--Growth Management Act of 199€>} that empowered certain counties and cRies via re9ionai metroFnfKan planning agencies (}.e-, Puget Sound Re9ionai Council) to identify "essential transportation facilities of statewide significance.” (i.e. Sea-Tac) At least I believe PSRC and Sea-Tac would make this claim. The problem is that PSRC did not follow-through with Sea-Tac with demands of better performance, as a condition of the third runway. My impression is that South King County (SKC) cities do not trust that PSRC would decide in their favor since the organization is largely controlled by the largest cities of King County (i.e. Seattle, Bellevue, etc.). This section sets up a controversy between…
V V