10/08/98 Gabbert to Boharskiu
U. S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
October 8, 1998
The Honorable William. E. Boharski
Mayor, City of Kalispell
P. O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT S 9903-1997
Dear Mayor Boharski:
AIRPORTS DISTRICT OFFICE
2725 Skyway Drive, Suite 2
Helena, MT 59602-1213
This is in response to your October 2 letter in which you indicated your understanding of
several key issues raised during the City Council meeting of September 28 where an
initial report for the Kalispell City Airport Master Plan Study (MPS) was presented. I
was at the meeting and appreciated the opportunity to provide comments. These
responses to your listed items are in the order you presented there. I'll also provide
additional comments regarding other issues regarding the airport.
1. That is correct unless aircraft using an airport are in a higher design standards criteria.
There is a statutory requirement to meet standards as prescribed by FAA. our design
standards criteria is established by the type of aircraft using (or forecast to use) an airport
and this criteria is considered minimurn criteria and we go to a higher level if conditions
warrant. Surveys for Kalispell City Airport apparently have shown no using aircraft in
the "B-II" category. However, if we fund ai ort develo Me;np it is our olio that the
n ninzurn design standards cateizory that needs to be met is for the 'B-IT" condition. If
.this airport is unproved there is the potential for considerable additional activity.
Developing the airport to this category allows for such activity to be accommodated with
future limited constraints.
2. Initial/new ALP funding for an devel rnent for any ai ort is. at our discretion.
Many factors are used to determine our involvement in airport development and include
safety issues, efficiency of the development including the financial aspects, aeronautical
viability, environmental conditions, alternatives, priority, need and tinning of the
development, availability of funding, etc.
3. Required airport land is an eligible item of development even some years after
purchase so there is the "possibility" of future reimbursement. As stated in our previous
letters and as originally discussed, if we agree to provide funds for development, we
a 1:�ect the c to obtam._o ntroi of tho land needed for the B-fP _condition in addition to
MAL
the cost associated with the radio towers resolution. This land consists of several parcels
N
bordering the present airport boundaries. This control could be by trade, donation or fee
acquisition subject to the "Uniform. Act" provisions. when the NIPS is completed and the
various issues have been addressed, we will review and discuss with the city what options
may be suitable for proceeding with obtaining this - land if we both a.gree to continue with
development of the airport.. If we fund future development, we will consider the land
needed for runway protection zones (RPZ) as part of the FAA eligible development.
4. we acknowledge the statements you make; however, we won't commit to
any development or funding scenarios other than what we have previously stated.
Additionally, we do' -riot commit to funding any development at the airport until the MPS
is completed and the various issues have been addressed. At that time we will consider
the results and make a decision regarding funding of development. In considering the
results, various items will be evaluated which will include; if any items/issues remain to
be addressed such as the environmental process, any options that might be available,
costs of.the development compared to costs of an alternative site (to determine financial
viability), what agreements should be formalized regarding who would be responsible for
what and timing of the various items/issues. These would all be discussed with the city
before any commitments are made.
Additional comments from the meeting:
The process for continuing on to phase two of the NIPS (or terminating the MPS) should
be formalized. The consultant should complete phase one and notify the various parties
that it has been completed per the contract tenors. The city should then acknowledge
completion and indicate a decision to continue or terminate the MPS. we will support
the decision to continue the MPS if the i c oases t cant e,�
The runway length may be constructed initially to accommodate 75% of the CA fleet
(approx. 3,600 ft.), although we would recommend it be constructed to 95% length
(approx. 4,300 ft.) based on present activity and what is anticipated to occur if the airport
is improved. The Ainoort L@ out Plan ALP to be deVelo .. ed.. during the NIPS needs to
show the 95% length as a minimum. we recommend the 100% length (approx. 4,700 ft.)
be shown so all future planning around the airport can be predicated on potential future
airport expansion. If the 100% length is not shown, it won't be protected and this could
close out future options. Showing these longer lengths is not a commitment to
constructing those lengths. If the runway is not extended, these protected areas provide
for additional approach buffer areas.
A continent was made regarding land previously acquired for RPZ on the north and if it
would be eligible for future reimbursement. we will need to review the details of that
purchase and if we are involved in the future with airport development this may be
considered depending on specifics such as how it was purchased, cost reasonableness,
location of the land and how it fits with overall development scheme.
3
I am enclosing previous correspondence dated 4/19/91, 1 /7197 and 2/2 I /97 which
provides some history, outlines the various issues relating to the airport, states our
conditions regarding future funding that resulted from the 12/95 meeting and provides the
process needed for us to determine if we would fund development in the future. The
items/issues stated in these letters are concerns of ours and we will be cautious about our
funding airport development at this site. Additionally, enclosed is a set of Assurances
that sponsors of airport receiving AIP grants are to comply with. A comment was made
at the meeting regarding "FAA requiring" many things. These Assurances cover many of
these "requirements"'. I am including these items for your convenient reference.
We are available to discuss any of the various issues regarding the airport any time you
and/or the City Council or others would like to discuss there. If you have additional
working sessions/meetings regarding the airport, or if anyone wants to call and discuss
anything, please contact Gary Gates at (406) 449-5230 or myself at (406) 449-5271.
Sincerely,
at��l 4X
avid P. Ga Bert
Manager
Enclosures
cc:
Gilbert K. Bissell
Mom* son Maierle
ANM-600