Loading...
02/21/97 Gabbert to KreppsJUN..-02' 98(TUE) 15:31 AIRPORTS DIST OFFIGE U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration February 2 I, 1997 Mr, Clarence W. ' Krepps City Manager. City of Kalispell R 0. Box 1997 Kalispell, ITT 59903 - 1997 Dear- Mr_ Knepp s TEL:406 449 5214 AIR ORTS DISTRICT OPFICE 272 Skyway Drive, Suite 2 He[e a, MT 59601 F. 006 This is in response to your February 4 letter regarding the pr cess of obtaining our financial support for airport development at �ispeil City ort. You bring up several questions and make some observations regarding items relate to the December 1996 meeting and my .lanuaty 7 letter: The City of Kalispell has a tablished a point of contact (you), has resolved the sponsorship issue, has stated a positio regarding the private accesses to the airport, and is creating an airport rn anager's p s iti on. These are all very positive steps and show the City's commitment to the airport. it was not my intent that the concept of an airport Master Pla be a (`major surpTise"_ It was not discussed at the December meeting but much regardi g our process was not discussed in that meeting. A. Master Plan is the typical proses for a new airport or first time FAA involvement in are airport and we strongly recomm nd it be the process used as much needs to be accomplished. Much work has been done d is contained in various documents but this information needs to be in one document. our continent that you want us to "..,review all of the current plans and docutiients...' is an ex=ple. we have reviewed some of what has been submitted but it is difficult airport information is intermingled with other information and is conta�tned in variou documents. We did discuss a window of opportunity but that was predicat d on much happening before we would be in a position to find anything other than a aster plan. Many things need to be accomplished by you and the most efficient way to complish this is with a Master- Plan. It allows our funding proms to find these ite s as they are being accomplished. It allows for an orderly process which clearly d des the work scope and allows for all items to be addressed and resolved so that every a will know what needs to be done by who, when and at what cost. A grant could be is ued for such a study in a few months depending on timeliness'of consultant selection an various reviews (and subject to the national trust fund issue being resolved). This M ter Plan, which must be accomplished by a qualified aviation party (consultant, etc.), b comes the basic document that brings everything together and shows the future f the azrport. a . -� TELL 406 4.49 5274 P. ��? JUN. -�? 98(TUE) i 5 : 32 AIRPORTS D I ST OFFICE Without doing this Master Plan you will need to fund these i eons without our participation. If we issue a grant in the future some items w Id be eligible for our participation, Any costs we may participate in would requir review for reasonableness and allowability and we would need to review the qualificati ns of those that perform those efforts. More specifics on this can be better defined if a get further into that process. Items required to be accomplished by you with or without a FAA funded Master Plan include: early resolution of the tower issue, information regarding the future activity and role of the airport, an environmental assessment (EA), land we and controls around the airport, completion of the Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the de elopment of the property map and a financial plan. Other items such as a plan for the a quisition of the many properties that need to be acquired could be included but would not necessarily be required. The most important item that needs to be accomplished early �; Ehe environmental processing (EA). The EA will contain much detail Such as an alternatives analysis to the proposed improvements which would include a do nothing aIt tive, new and existing site alternatives and an alternative of the availability of Glacie Park Int' 1. Airport, future activity and role of the airport, conununity support, noise . p cts, safety impacts, an opportunity for a public hearing, etc. The EA needs to be f ni ed prior to taking any action (such as land acquisition) that indicates decisions have beady been made. In theory the environmental process is unbiased and supports dec sions for airport improvements. If decisions are made that are counter to the conclusions they roust be strongly supported and rationale presented as to why they are a hest decisions. Much detail is needed for the other various items listed such land use and control documentation as to what exists and what is needed in the Tutu es accurate cost estimates for the total airport project, who would be expected to pay for hat and when, future revenue generation and costs of operation and maintenance, et . I have riot listed all of the detail items but you can see there is a lot of detail to be ace implished by qualified parties. Thank you for the copies of the prelinmaary ALP. I was consi ring initiating an airspace evaluation of the tower located further away from the airport to determine what impacts it would have such as future inst=ent minimums, etc., in the event it was not moved. This is pretn,ature because of both towers needing to work toge er. Before an airspace analysis is initiated we need to know where the two towers wo 1 d be after any modificatians or moving of arse ar both. we dan't have enou information to proceed. You discuss conL=ty support and the many meetings that ha a been held and that there has been no opposition. This is very positive. however, uring these van.ous effort was the future role of the airport and the potential for increased tIvity including executive jet traffic and possible increased noise impacts discus ed? what are the impacts if the runway is moved to the south and lengthened to 4700 ft.? As you can see these type of questions will need to be addressed and this is don in the EA. TELL �06 ��� ���� P. 008 J� �: -Q' 98TUF 10?RPORTS FIST OFFICE �. You continent that we appear to be overly sensitive about a I amount of opposition. Over the years we have observed that small arnounts of oppo ition can. grow (or be very onerous if srriall) when more information about the airport i provernents becomes known and the public becornes better educated about those improve eats. The environmental process of numerous airport improvements around the coup have been challenged by "small amounts" of opposition. Our position is that comet ty support relating to the future role and improvements of the airport mast be addresse . This is necessary due to the location of the airpot-t in relation to residences, schools, b inesses, etc. Incidentally, we received a letter from another concerned citizen regarding the airport improvements which you should have also received as you were copied on a letter. Y F The land acquisition by the city is a necessary item to be acco lished without our y participation and will require following Uniform .Act provisro Our offer of support was based on the City acquiring the land and resolving the to ers issue and using our A 3 program to fund (at 90%) the on airport ftnprovements. This ould be the case regardless XP�� of uniform act requirements, although we needed to verify tha the uniform act needed to . be met. we do not intend on fundingthe land under our pro ant. In the ast we wetc p not supporting any FAA financial and for the airport so the a enditure of City funds for the tower and land issues aloe with accomplishing the vans g P g items previously stated is P Y a condition of our financial support for the on airport improve cuts. This is all predicated on the EA processing and as previously stated we need to he c utious about predetermining the decisions without environmental analysis. No action has yet been taken on NPIAS inclusion and this will be done when it is appropriate. Prior to conducting the Master Plan we will place the airport in the NPIAS temporarily until it is completed and Icave it in if we continue support the airport. If the Master Plan is not undertaken we will wait until we are clo er to a grant after or near completion of the many items that need to be accomplished. T e NPIAS inclusion is not necessary from our view until we get closer to some sort of fun ing. You make a conuxlent regarding ... fz-astration over the " moving targets" our agency has historically presented.... our position until the State Aviation c nference last year in Helena was that we were not going to support this airport. At t conference we agreed to reconsider that position and effort was expended by you to some preliminary ALP work and to get more information. Dating the December I996 Meetmg you agreed that certain standards would be met and we stated consideration for upport if the city was willing work the tower issue and purchase land. My January 7 etter then. outlined the process and ruany details that need to be accomplished. Our int Lion is to move forward cautiously and have answers to the many items that have to be a dress. The Master Plan wilt accomplish this with miz�iinal risk to either per. Following are answers or comments to your 5 questions in yourFebruary 4letter. L This letter along with the material being sent to you should answer this. If it remains unclear please let nae know. P. 009 AIRPORTS DIST OFFICE TEE JUN: - 0f 98(TUE) 15 iW 2. No, the City will not he re uired to complete a Master Flan prior to any FAA funding considerations. However, the City will have to accomplish the various items i have enumerated in this letter prior to any FAA funding considerations (except for handing of a Master Flan). 3. Ices, as relates to the closest tower. We plan to initiate an airspace analysis of the other tourer, if it remains, when it is known what happens to the closest tower. 4. Yes as relates to land needed for minimum airport standards items which includes lateral dimensional standards. 5. l presumed the "ball" was rolling swce our December 1996 meeting and nothing was needed to get it rolling again. My January 7 letter was to inform you of the process needed and this letter will add to and clarify that letter. Again, there is much that has to he accomplished and we believe.a Master Plan 90% funded through our program is the process to accomphsh this effort. This and the many handouts and advisory circulars I'm sending you separately should provide enough information for some specifics to assist you. we encourage you to get on the Advisory Circular Mailing list so you can get more of our puhlieations that will he needed down the road. This letter contains much information regardine, our process and we recopize that it is not complete as the process is complex. As with these type of projects (first time airport sponsor and FAA participation) there is much to be done in detail to satisfy our process. As you can see the assistance of someone qualified and knowledgeable about airports and our program would be very beneficial to you. Please call nee at 449-5271 after you reviewed this letter and information and we can discuss this further. Sincerely, ,d,A,, �/ David P. Gabbe Manager cc: MT State Aeronautics Gilbert Bissell