I2. Ord. 1835, SKURP Final Action
Planning Department
201 1st Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone: (406) 758-7940
Fax: (406) 758-7739
www.kalispell.com/planning
REPORT TO: Doug Russell, City Manager
FROM: Jarod Nygren, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Ordinance 1835 – Approval of South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan -
Airport Road and 18th Street West Project
MEETING DATE: January 6, 2020
BACKGROUND: The Kalispell City Council, at their meeting on December 16, 2019, held a public
hearing on the proposed South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan - Airport Road and 18th Street West
Project. During the public comment portion of the hearing, one property owner spoke out regarding
his concerns with the new driveway approach into the parking lot along 1st Avenue West. He
mentioned that he would hope the approach could be moved to Airport Road. There being no further
public comment the hearing was closed. The proposed South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan project
includes the following:
1. The closure of 18th Street West from Airport Road westerly and replacing it with a new
alignment two blocks to the north at 16th Street West connecting Airport Road with 1st Ave.
West.
This project will eliminate the dangerous off set intersection at 18th Street West and
Airport Road.
The new 16th street alignment will be built to city standards and contain curb, gutter,
sidewalks, landscape boulevard and street trees on both sides.
The new alignment will also continue the painted and signed bike lane off Airport Road in
place of on street parking.
2. The construction of approximately 7,500 linear feet of sidewalk extending:
Along the west side of Airport Road from Rankin School to U.S. 93 South,
Along 1st Ave. West from Airport Road and 16th Street West, 12 Street West and then
westerly along 12 Street West to just past Legends Field,
Along the north side of 18th Street from Airport Road east to U.S. 93 South, and
Along the south side of Begg Park Drive from Airport Road to Ashley Creek.
This component will provide continuous pedestrian access via sidewalks from Rankin School
north to several new subdivisions and apartment complexes and to existing sidewalk which
connects Downtown Kalispell, Legends Field and Flathead High School.
3. Signing Airport Road shoulders as a designated bike lane.
The city has officially signed Airport Road shoulders as “No Parking”. This provides an
excellent opportunity to designate both sides of this road as bike lanes.
This road is a popular commuter and recreational road for bicycle traffic.
The initial sidewalk design proposed in 2 above was intended to be an 8-foot-wide
detached shared path for pedestrians and bikes. With the advent of “no parking” along
Airport Road, it makes sense to reduce the width and cost of the sidewalk program (now
proposed to be a standard 5-foot sidewalk width) and move bikes out to the Airport Road
Shoulders.
The Bike Lane would be designated with both signs and painted bike emblems on the
roadway shoulders.
4. The conversion of the vacant lot at 18th Street West and Airport Road to an improved public
parking facility.
The site will accommodate approximately 166 parking spaces, have internal landscape
islands, comply with city storm water standards and contain landscape boulevards, street
trees and sidewalks along the perimeter.
This parking lot will provide a controlled snow storage area during winter months serving
the Airport Road neighborhood and will be managed in compliance with our MS-4
requirements.
The Kalispell Urban Renewal Agency held a meeting on September 18, 2019, to consider the 30%
design and cost estimate for the Airport Road and 18th Street West Project. Staff and WGM presented
details of the 30% design and cost estimate. A motion was presented recommending approval of the
design and cost estimate. Discussion concluded that the project was appropriate, and the motion
passed unanimously on roll call vote. The URA had previously recommended approval of the
proposed project (Option 9) on September 19, 2018 and reaffirmed on April 17, 2019.
Section 7-15-4213 MCA requires that prior to the approval of an urban renewal project, the local
governing body shall submit the project to the planning board for review and recommendations as to
its conformity to the urban renewal plan and Growth Policy of the city. Accordingly, the Kalispell
Planning Board held a duly noticed public hearing November 12, 2019, to consider the Airport Road
and 18th Street West project. Staff presented a report providing details of the proposal and evaluation.
Staff recommended that the Planning Board adopt the submitted report as findings of fact and
determine that the Airport Road and 18th Street West project is supported by the South Kalispell
Urban Renewal Plan and is in conformity with the Kalispell Growth Policy Plan-IT 2035 and that the
Board forward this recommendation on to the Kalispell City Council.
There being no public testimony, a motion was presented to adopt the submitted report as findings of
fact and determine that the Airport Road and 18th Street West project is supported by the South
Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan and is in conformity with the Kalispell Growth Policy Plan-IT 2035
and that the Board forward this recommendation on to the Kalispell City Council. Board discussion
concluded that the project was appropriate, and the motion passed unanimously on roll call vote.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Kalispell City Council make a motion to
approve the first reading of Ordinance 1835, an Ordinance approving the Airport Road and 18th Street
West as an urban renewal project supported by the South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan and in
conformance with the Kalispell Growth Policy Plan-IT 2035.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Proposed urban renewal project will be paid for through balance of South
Kalispell/Airport TIF.
ALTERNATIVES: Council may elect to not pass the resolution, or propose modifications as
necessary.
ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance 1835
November 12, 2019 Kalispell Planning Board Minutes
September 18, 2019 URA Minutes
April 17, 2019 URA Minutes
September 19, 2018 URA Minutes
Airport Road and 18th Street Project Planning Board Report/Findings
South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan
c: Aimee Brunckhorst, Kalispell City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 1835
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SOUTH KALISPELL URBAN RENEWAL PLAN BY APPROVING THE AIRPORT ROAD AND 18TH STREET WEST URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT AS RECOMMENDED BY THE KALISPELL URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY AND THE KALISPELL CITY PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD. WHEREAS, the City of Kalispell, Montana (the "City") is authorized by Montana Code Annotated, Title 7, Chapter 15, Parts 42 and 43, as amended (the "Act"), to create an urban renewal area, to undertake urban renewal projects therein, to provide for the segregation and collection of tax increment with respect to property taxes
collected in the urban renewal area, to issue its bonds to pay the costs of such
projects and to pledge to the repayment of the bonds the tax increment derived from the urban renewal area; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, this Council adopted Ordinance No.
1242, on July 1, 1996, establishing an urban renewal area within the City designated
as the "City of Kalispell Airport/Athletic Complex Urban Renewal District" (the "Urban Renewal Area") and adopted an urban renewal plan therefor, entitled the "Kalispell City Airport/Athletic Complex Redevelopment Plan Analysis" (the "Urban Renewal Plan"), after duly mailed and published notice and a public hearing
and receipt of recommendations from the City/County Planning Board, which
certified that the Urban Renewal Plan conforms to the general plan for the development of the City as a whole and the comprehensive plan of the City for the area containing the Urban Renewal Area; and
WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 1260, adopted by this Council on March 17, 1997, this Council
amended Ordinance No. 1242 to provide for the segregation of and application of tax increment in the Urban Renewal Area and established January 1, 1996 as the base year for calculating the tax increment as provided in Sections 7-15-4282 through 7-15-4293 of the Act; and
WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 1541, adopted by this Council on July 19, 2005, this Council amended Ordinance No. 1260 to include additional projects consistent with and in furtherance of the Plan; and
WHEREAS, on July 5, 2016, this Council passed Ordinance No. 1774, amending Ordinance No.
1541, with findings adopting a study by CTA Architects, referred to now as the South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan, which identified, among other things, recommended improvements to the vehicular and pedestrian transportation facilities within the Urban Renewal District; and
WHEREAS, thereafter the City contracted with WGM Engineering to facilitate an urban renewal project consistent with and in furtherance of the South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan, and referred to as the Airport Road and 18th Street West Project, designed to mitigate the vehicular and pedestrian impacts of various new developments in the
Urban Renewal Area, that included the addition of an elementary school as well as
housing and apartment developments; and
WHEREAS, WGM Engineering presented the 30% design and cost estimate for the Airport Road and 18th Street West Project to the Urban Renewal Agency, which approved it and forwarded it to the Kalispell Planning Board for public hearing; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to MCA 7-15-4213, on November 12, 2019, the Kalispell Planning and
Zoning Board took public comment on the Airport Road and 18th Street West Project at a noticed public hearing, reviewed and considered it as to its conformity with the Kalispell Growth Policy Plan-It 2035 and transmitted it to the City Council with the finding that the Project conforms to the Kalispell Growth Policy Plan-It
2035 and should be adopted by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on December 16, 2019, pursuant to Sections 7-15-4214, 7-15-4215 and 7-15-4221 of the Act and in compliance therein of all notice requirements, the Kalispell City Council conducted a public hearing and heard public comment on the proposed
amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan with the proposed Airport Road and 18th
Street West Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Modification of South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan with the Approval of the Airport Road and 18th Street West Urban Renewal Project. The City adopts the findings and accepts the recommendations of the Kalispell Urban Renewal Agency and the Kalispell City Planning Board and hereby approves and designates the Airport Road and
18th Street West Urban Renewal Project as an Urban Renewal Project of the South
Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan and modifies the Plan accordingly. The Urban Renewal Project herein designated and approved by the City may be modified by the City Council if the City Council determines by Resolution that an adjustment to an Urban Renewal Project is required in the best interests of the City.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance is to be published as required by law and copies made available to the public upon request. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final passage.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF
THE CITY OF KALISPELL, THIS ____ DAY OF JANUARY, 2020. ______________________________
Mark Johnson
ATTEST: Mayor ____________________________
Aimee Brunckhorst, CMC
City Clerk
Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 12, 2019 Page | 1
KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING November 12, 2019
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Board members present were Chad Graham, Kurt Vomfell, Joshua Borgardt, Rory Young, George Giavasis, Doug Kauffman and Ronalee Skees. Jarod Nygren and Tom Jentz represented the Kalispell Planning Department. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Giavasis moved and Kauffman seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the October 8, 2019 meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission.
VOTE BY ACCLAMATION The motion passed unanimously on a vote of acclamation. PUBLIC COMMENT None.
OLD BUSINESS KA-19-03 & KPP-19-03 JAXON RIDGE (TABLED ON OCTOBER 8, 2019)
File #’s KA-19-03 and KPP-19-03 – Siderius Construction, LLP is requesting permission to annex 3.9-acres into the City of Kalispell with an initial zoning of R-4 and major subdivision approval for a 24-lot townhouse subdivision. The 3.9-acre property will be annexed under the provisions of Sections 7-2-4601 through 7-2-4610, M.C.A., Annexation by Petition. The major subdivision application was reviewed in accordance with Section 28.2.06 of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations.
STAFF REPORT Jarod Nygren representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed Staff Report #KA-19-03 and #KPP-19-03. Nygren, as a refresher to the board and public, went over the annexation and subdivision requests, including the location of the property, land uses, zoning, growth policy designation and existing city services in the vicinity. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission remove staff reports #KA-19-03 and #KPP-19-03 from the table and adopt staff reports #KA-19-03 and #KPP-19-03 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the property be annexed and the zoning for the property be City R-4 (Residential) and that the preliminary plat Jaxon Ridge be approved, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.
MOTION (KA-19-03 & KPP-19-03) REMOVE FROM TABLE
Kauffman moved and Giavasis seconded a motion that the Kalispell City
Planning Board and Zoning Commission remove staff reports #KA-19-03 and #KPP-19-03 from the table.
VOTE BY ACCLAMATION The motion passed unanimously on a vote of acclamation. BOARD DISCUSSION None.
MOTION (KA-19-03) (10/8/2019) Vomfell moved and Young seconded a motion that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report #KA-19-03 as findings and
fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the property be annexed and the zoning for the property be City R-4 (Residential).
BOARD DISCUSSION ROLL CALL
None. The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote.
Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 12, 2019 Page | 2
MOTION (KPP-19-03) (10/18/2019) Vomfell moved and Giavasis seconded a motion that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report #KPP-19-03 as findings of
fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat Jaxon Ridge be approved, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.
BOARD DISCUSSION None.
ROLL CALL
The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote.
KPP-19-04 KNTC PHASE 3
A request from Eagle Valley Ranch Apartments, LLC and Stillwater Corporation for major subdivision approval of Kalispell North Town Center,
Phase 3 into 22 commercial lots, common area, and new city street.
STAFF REPORT Jarod Nygren representing the Kalispell Planning Department advised the board
that this agenda item, as requested by the applicant, is being withdrawn at this time. The applicant is reconfiguring their subdivision based on some of their
recent lot sales and will be bringing this back before the board in the next couple of months.
AIRPORT RD. & 18TH STREET WEST PROJECT
Airport Road and 18th Street Project - the Planning Board is tasked with reviewing these projects in conformance with the City of Kalispell Growth
Policy 2035 and making such a recommendation to the City Council. The plan boundary is generally bounded by 18th Street to the north, Cemetery Road to
the south, Airport Road to the West and U.S. 93 to the east.
STAFF REPORT
Tom Jentz representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed the Airport Rd. and 18th Street West project.
Jentz advised the board that the law, MCA Code, requires any project that is funded by TIF money to go before the Planning Board for a recommendation
and to ensure that the project complies with the South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan as well as the Kalispell Growth Policy Plan-IT 2035. Staff recommends that the Planning Board, based on the findings in this report,
determine that the Airport and 18th Street West Project is supported by the South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan and is in conformity with the Kalispell
Growth Policy Plan-IT 2035 and that the Board forward this recommendation on to the Kalispell City Council.
BOARD DISCUSSION Young asked about the vacant lot and if a parking lot in a residential area is the best use for the lot. Jentz advised the lot cannot be developed with structures
because of its proximity to the airport so a parking lot will provide overflow parking for events at Legends Field, snow storage for the city Public Works
Department, which is required by the state to have a hard surface snow storage location, RV Parking and/or a park and ride location. Landscaping and sidewalks will be required around the parking lot and the lot will be lit with streetlights.
Giavasis asked if the parking lot would have a 24-hour public parking sign.
Jentz advised that they had not really gotten that far in the planning yet but that he does not foresee the parking lot being open 24 hours simply to avoid it from becoming an RV camping spot.
Giavasis asked about planned intersections across Airport Rd. Jentz advised there is an existing intersection at Rankin School that when school is in session
a crossing guard will take the children back and forth. There are a few crossings in the South Meadows area.
Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 12, 2019 Page | 3
Vomfell feels that with the added sidewalk and extending the bike trail this will make a great north/south pedestrian thoroughfare at the south end of town.
PUBLIC COMMENT None.
MOTION Vomfell moved and Skees seconded a motion that the Kalispell City Planning
Board and Zoning Commission, based on the findings in this report, determine that the Airport and 18th Street West Project is supported by the South Kalispell
Urban Renewal Plan and is in conformity with the Kalispell Growth Policy Plan-IT 2035 and that the Board forward this recommendation on to the
Kalispell City Council.
BOARD DISCUSSION Graham would prefer to see the travel path from the proposed parking lot to
Legends Field not be so long but understands why the path goes the way it goes. He likes the project as a whole, feels it fixes many issues that the city has been
having in the area and that it will open the door for future growth.
ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote.
TIGER SUPPLEMENTAL SEA (PUBLIC HEARING ONLY) The City has completed a Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA), approved by the Federal Railroad Administration and available for review and comment for 30 days, ending November 19, 2019. In an extended effort to elicit public comment on the SEA, the city is holding a public hearing before the
Planning Board, where the public can comment on the SEA and provide feedback as necessary.
STAFF REPORT Tom Jentz representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed the TIGER Supplemental SEA. Jentz advised the board that this a request to comment on the revised Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA). He reminded the board that the original TIGER Grant was submitted it included 6 at grade street
crossings (8th and 6th Ave, Woodland Ave, 1st, 3rd and 4th Ave) and that at least one of those would be across the future Kalispell Trail to improve connectivity,
pedestrian and vehicular access. As staff went through the environmental process, the Federal Rail Administration (FRA) told them that 6 connections were too many to propose. The FRA advised staff that this was really a Public Works project and that they would have to select which one specifically they
wanted to do now. The FRA allowed them to keep 3 as an option at that time. Staff has now gone back to the FRA to ask that all 6 now be reconsidered. The
purpose of this agenda item today is strictly as a public hearing, staff is asking for public comment through November 19, 2019.
PUBLIC COMMENT None.
BOARD DISCUSSION Giavasis asked for clarification as to how many connections were actually going
to be completed. Jentz advised funding only allows for one connection at this time; the hope is that there will be 6 options now rather than just 3. Vomfell
inquired about 1st, 3rd and 4th Ave and how the connections would be made with the mall being in the way. Jentz advised that there would have to be an access easement agreement of some sort reached with the mall owners to gain access to Main, Center and 5th, which would allow the neighborhood to breathe.
Giavasis noted that if the trail funding hinges on a road connection then he absolutely feels that 1s, 3rd and 4th should be added in. He supports whatever is
necessary to get a trail put in. Kauffman does not feel there is any draw back to adding the 3 connections back in. The board all agreed that it would be a win-win situation. Vomfell feels the connection should be made as close to Main St as possible.
NEW BUSINESS Graham spoke to Tom Jentz about this being his last meeting and presented him a plaque for his 36 years with the city.
Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 12, 2019 Page | 4
ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:58pm.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Kalispell Planning Board will be on Tuesday,
December 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. and is located in the Kalispell City Council Chambers, 201 1st Ave East.
___________________ ____________________ Chad Graham Kari Hernandez
President Recording Secretary
APPROVED as submitted/amended:
City of Kalispell
Post Office Box 1997 - Kalispell, Montana 59903
Telephone: (406) 758-7701 Fax: (406) 758-7758
Meeting Summary
URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY BOARD
SEPTEMBER 18, 2019 – 4 P.M.
CITY HALL – FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE
Marc Rold Charity Zemke, WGM Group
David Girardot Katharine King, Comm. & Econ. Dev. Asst. Manager
Shannon Freix Tom Jentz, Planning Director
Jarod Nygren, Senior Planner
Krista Lammers, Community & Economic Development
Chairman Rold called the meeting to order and welcomed the WGM Staff, Board and City Staff.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
APPROVAL OF MEETING SUMMARY
David motioned to accept the July 24, 2019 meeting minutes, Shannon 2nd, passed unanimously. Shannon
motioned to accept the August 21, 2019 meeting minutes, David 2nd, passed unanimously.
TIF & TEDD UPDATES
The Board reviewed the West Side TIF application for Glenwood Apartments. Applicant will be invited to
attend the October meeting. Email questions for the applicant to Katharine or Krista.
Charity Zemke gave an overview of the Airport Road Intersections and Sidewalk Improvements 30% design
and opinion of probable cost for the South Kalispell Traffic Project. David motioned to recommend the design
and cost estimate to City Council, Shannon 2nd, passed unanimously. City Staff will have a follow up meeting
with Public Works and School District 5 regarding the bus parking area and 17th Street.
Minor change will be made to the City of Kalispell Targeted Economic District & Tax Increment Financing
Districts Annual Report followed recommendation to City Council.
TIGER/KALISPELL CORE & RAIL REDEVELOPMENT
Katharine went over the Kalispell Trail & Complete Street 30% Design Submittal Draft street crossings. 90%
design/engineering is anticipated to be complete by the end of the year with plans to go to bid in Spring 2020
with construction beginning in Fall 2020 or Spring 2021. The FRA legal department will begin review of the
Supplemental Environmental Assessment in October due to a heavy workload. Review is slated to take three
to four weeks putting the 30-day public comment period sometime in November.
BROWNFIELDS: None.
NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING
The Board next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, October 16th at 4 p.m.
Marc adjourned the meeting.
City of Kalispell
Post Office Box 1997 - Kalispell, Montana 59903
Telephone: (406) 758-7701 Fax: (406) 758-7758
Meeting Summary
URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY BOARD
APRIL 17, 2019 – 4 P.M.
CITY HALL – FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE
Chairman Marc Rold Tom Jentz, Planning Director
Matt Venturini Jarod Nygren, Senior Planner
Jeff Zauner Krista Lammers, Comm. & Econ. Dev.
Mike Brodie, WGM Group
Chairman Rold called the meeting to order and welcomed the WGM consultant, the Board and City Staff.
PUBLIC COMMENT - None.
APPROVAL OF MEETING SUMMARY
Matt motioned to accept the March meeting minutes, Jeff 2nd, passed unanimously.
TIF & TEDD UPDATES
The WGM appraisal of the property needed for the 18th Street Realignment option has been completed. WGM
will communicate with the property owner. Survey work of the project area is nearly complete from airport
road to Rankin Elementary School, this will lead into the schematic design for the area, to include sidewalk.
The Airport Users Group looks to make improvements this spring, using South Kalispell/Airport TIF funding.
Public Works will make improvements to the city shops property. Plans include moving the fence line back to
put in a 5-foot sidewalk, adding a landscape boulevard and street trees and possibly replacing the existing
fence with a green vinyl chain fencing, as part of the WGM design of the larger South Kalispell Traffic Project.
The URA Board reaffirmed the recommendation of the 16th Street Offset option to City Council.
The draft Downtown TIF Policies and Procedures were reviewed. It was noted that impact fees are eligible
activities in the Downtown TIF and that payback agreements based on tax revenues created by the project can
be utilized. The Shared Utilities Program 12% verbiage will be removed from the draft and points system will
be incorporated into the application documents instead of the policy and procedure document. City Staff will
begin work on an update of the West Side TIF policies, procedures and application.
TIGER/KALISPELL CORE & RAIL REDEVELOPMENT
Alta Planning + Design is working on implementing Kalispell Public Works street crossing designs, to be
shared with the Board at next month’s meeting. KLJ Engineering is working on Supplemental
Environmental Assessment, which will be available for public comment following Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) approval.
NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING
The Board next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, May 15th at 4 p.m.
Chairman Rold adjourned the meeting.
City of Kalispell
Post Office Box 1997 - Kalispell, Montana 59903
Telephone: (406) 758-7701 Fax: (406) 758-7758
Meeting Summary
URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY BOARD
SEPTEMBER 19, 2018 – 4 P.M.
CITY HALL – FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE
Chairman Marc Rold Mike Brodie, WGM Group
Jeff Zauner Tom Jentz, Planning Director
David Girardot Katharine King, Asst. Director Comm. & Econ. Development
Shannon Freix Jarod Nygren, Senior Planner
Matt Venturini Krista Lammers, Community & Economic Development
Chairman Rold called the meeting to order and welcomed Board, public and city staff.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
APPROVAL OF MEETING SUMMARY
Passed unanimously.
TIF & TEDD UPDATES
An overview of the DRAFT Downtown Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan was provided by Kalispell Senior
Planner, Jarod Nygren. The plan boundary follows the Kalispell Downtown Plan boundary. The proposed
downtown tax increment financing district will serve as a funding mechanism to assist in the
implementation of The Downtown Plan.
Ms. Freix moved to recommend approval of the DRAFT Downtown Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan, Mr.
Girardot second. Approved 4-1.
WGM Group consultant, Mike Brodie, provided an overview of the South Kalispell Traffic Impact Study
and design alternatives. He noted that the US Highway 93/13th Street/Airport Road area did not warrant a
stop light or pedestrian crossing according to Montana Department of Transportation standards and
review. Airport Road Concepts 8 and 9 were reviewed for the Airport Road and 18th Street intersection.
Mr. Brodie noted that green space and parking lot spaces can be added to either concept. Following the
Board recommendation a community open house held and a newsletter will be mailed to area neighbors.
Mr. Girardot moved to recommend Concept 9 improvements to the Airport Road intersection, Mr.
Zauner second. Motion passed unanimously.
TIGER/KALISPELL CORE & RAIL REDEVELOPMENT
The Board was invited to attend the grand opening of Glacier Rail Park will be Monday, October 15th at 10
a.m.
Ms. Freix attended the September 11th Trail Crew meeting on behalf of the Board, the Trail Crew is
reviewing the preliminary alignment, design and amenities, section by section and providing feedback to
the consultant. A master plan will likely be complete by early 2019.
BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM UPDATES
The EPA has approved Phase I Environmental Site Assessment work for the BNSF Rail Line. Consultants
are currently working on Phase II plans for work on the three CHS sites.
BUSINESS
Kalispell received an Opportunity Zone designation by Governor Steve Bullock. Currently, rules are still
being created for the designation, Katharine King will share more information about the designation and
its benefits as they become available.
Chairman Rold will not be available for next month’s meeting another member will need to chair the
meeting.
NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING
The Board next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, October 17th at 4 p.m.
ADJOURNED
Chairman Rold adjourned the meeting.
Planning Department
201 1st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalispell.com/planning
REPORT TO: Kalispell Planning Board
FROM: Jarod Nygren, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan – Airport and 18th Project MEETING DATE: November 12, 2019
A. BACKGROUND: On January 1, 2015, the City contracted with CTA Architects and Engineers to assist in an update of the City of Kalispell Airport/Athletic Complex Redevelopment Plan (Ordinance 1242). CTA, through an extensive public outreach effort, identified a number of
development and redevelopment concepts for which the established Airport Tax Increment
Finance (TIF) District could be utilized. Additionally, CTA developed a series of short-term and long-term options for the airport, airport lands, and surrounding neighborhoods within a DRAFT South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan. The Kalispell City Council, after a duly noticed public hearing on July 18, 2016, adopted the South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan by passing Ordinance
1774. Ordinance 1774 replaced the City of Kalispell Airport/Athletic Complex Redevelopment
Plan as a comprehensive development plan. The City of Kalispell utilizes a TIF District within the South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan boundary as part of the overall strategy to provide for appropriate public infrastructure projects in support of the redevelopment of blighted conditions. The plan boundary is generally bounded by 18th Street to the north, Cemetery Road to the south,
Airport Road to the West and U.S. 93 to the east.
Since the South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan was adopted by the council, there have been a number of new developments that have taken place within the plan boundary, including the construction of Rankin Elementary, which was identified as a project within the South Kalispell
Urban Renewal Plan, and the development of several residential subdivisions and an apartment
complex. Accordingly, in order to mitigate impacts associated with these new development and address blighted conditions within the plan boundary, the City contracted with WGM Engineering to facilitate a project that would seek to mitigate the impacts of these projects and benefit the greater neighborhood and the TIF District.
The Kalispell Urban Renewal Agency (URA), which is charged with overseeing the Airport TIF District worked with staff and WGM Engineering to develop a project within the confines and recommendations of the South Kalispell Urban Renewal plan that met expressed neighborhood needs and implemented the goals of the South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan by removing blight,
improving overall pedestrian accessibility in the Airport TIFD and improving public
infrastructure, which would encourage future neighborhood development and vitality. The URA did unanimously recommend for funding the Airport and 18th Street West Project at their August 21, 2019 Board meeting.
B. Project Description: The Airport and 18th Street West Project is described as follows:
1. The closure of 18th Street West from Airport road westerly and replacing it with a new alignment two blocks to the north at 16th Street West connecting Airport Road with 1st Ave. West.
• This project will eliminate the dangerous off set intersection at 18th Street West and Airport Road.
• The new 16th street alignment will be built to city standards and contain curb, gutter,
sidewalks, landscape boulevard and street trees on both sides.
• The new alignment will also continue the painted and signed bike lane off Airport Road in place of on street parking. 2. The construction of approximately 7,500 linear feet of sidewalk extending:
• Along the west side of Airport Road from Rankin School to US 93 South,
• Along 1st Ave. West From Airport Road and 16th Street west 12 Street West and then westerly along 12 Street West to just past Legends Field,
• Along the north side of 18 Street from Airport Road east to US 93 South, and
• Along the south side of Begg Park Drive from Airport Road to Ashley Creek. This component will provide continuous pedestrian access via sidewalks from Rankin School
north to several new subdivisions and apartment complexes and to existing sidewalk which
connect the Kalispell Downtown, Legends Field and Flathead High School. 3. Signing Airport Road shoulders as a designated bike lane.
• The city has officially signed Airport Road shoulders as “No Parking”. This provides an excellent opportunity to designate both sides of this road as bike lanes.
• This road is a popular commuter and recreational road for bicycle traffic.
• The initial sidewalk design proposed in 2 above was intended to be an 8 foot wide detached shared path for pedestrians and bikes. With the advent of “no parking” along Airport Road, it makes sense to reduce the width and cost of the sidewalk program (now proposed to be a standard 5 foot sidewalk width) and move bikes out to the Airport Road Shoulders.
• The Bike Lane would be designated with both signs and painted bike emblems on the roadway shoulders. 4. The conversion of the vacant lot at 18th Street West and Airport Road to an improved public
parking facility.
• The site will accommodate approximately 166 parking spaces, have internal landscape islands, comply with city storm water standards and contain landscape boulevards, street trees and sidewalks along the perimeter.
• This parking lot will provide a controlled snow storage area during winter months serving the Airport Road neighborhood and will be managed in compliance with our MS-4 requirements.
C. Planning Board Review Authority
Section 7-115-4213 MCA requires that prior to the approval of an urban renewal project, the local governing body shall submit the project to the planning board for review and recommendations as to its conformity to the urban renewal plan and Growth Policy of the city.
D. Planning Board Finding of Conformity of the proposed project to the South Kalispell
Urban Renewal Plan Staff held several open houses and solicited public comment early in process of developing this project. Through the public process the city identified the following projects, further outlined
above:
1) The current vacant lot on northwest corner of Airport Road and 18th was a vacant, blighted property owned by the city that had no practical use in the neighborhood due to its location within the airport runway zone. Note that the airport runway zone only allowed this site to be
used for agriculture, roads or parking. Converting the blighted city lot (often used for
dumping) into a parking facility was a very logical step to find a long-term use for the lot. Converting the vacant lot into a parking facility allowed for multiple uses beneficial to the public. Parking in or near Legends field is non-existent and the site has been historically used for parking for events at the field. The city also lacked an available site to collect and properly
store snow through the winter within the Airport TIFD neighborhood. Accordingly, the
parking lot could also be used to hold snow in the wintertime and allow parking for Legends Field and general public use the rest of the year. A portion of the blighted lot will also be used to construct road improvements, further outlined in 2) below.
2) The City had long identified the intersection of 18th and Airport Road as a hazardous
intersection, which impacted the free flow of vehicle and pedestrian movement into the downtown and Airport TIFD. Transportation System Management (TSM) improvements to the intersection were identified within the Kalispell Transportation Plan, accordingly, this project implements that plan and addresses a long-known district transportation deficiency.
3) The general pedestrian access in this neighborhood is woefully inadequate, which has become further impacted by Rankin Elementary, the construction of 150 new housing units and the presence of a high school athletic stadium, which was recently improved through school bonds.
Several of the goals of the South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan (SKURP) which guides how we are to allocate funds and develop projects, emphasized pedestrian safety and accessibility and improved vehicle and pedestrian connection with the downtown, core area and the Airport neighborhood. Plan statements are referenced below:
Major public support was expressed in the South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan for "Creating a walkable community" The Plan summary states –
• Increasing the quality of livability in the South Kalispell Area that includes
connectivity for streets, bike and pedestrian pathways, and increased park and trail
use. (Page 9)
• Recreational facilities like bike and pedestrian trails or dog parks attract people to an area from nearby neighborhoods. This ideas was widely supported by the public. (Page 11).
• Schools – Noted was the importance of quality neighborhood schools, as well as their school’s ability to serve new students in the future. Comments also centered on the school spurring new residential developments which would increase traffic. (Page 11)
• Walkability and Connectivity to the South Kalispell and Downtown Core. Attracting
neighborhood amenities like local commercial uses complements promoting
bike/pedestrian facilities in creating a well-connected, walkable environment. (Page 12) Under Development Recommendations and Strategies the Plan states:
• This plan will incorporate smart growth policies such as promoting infill development, mixed use developments, protecting the natural resources, encouraging walkability and redevelopment opportunities. (Page 42)
Under Development Guidelines, the Plan states:
• Providing the Highest Level of Public Services and Facilities. Growing without
subsequently expanding public infrastructure impairs the City’s ability to provide a
high level of public service to Kalispell’s taxpayers. Within their limits, the City
should make decisions based upon the impacts a project has on their ability to provide services such as water, sewer, emergency services, roads and other customer services. (Page 43)
• Promote a Transportation Network that is Safe for Pedestrians, Bikes, and Vehicles. Increased traffic volumes related to urban development have raised significant concerns about vehicular and pedestrian safety. Public officials and agencies should
strive to provide a network of streets that are safe and accessible for all modes of
travel, and where possible, implement urban design elements that encourage reduced
speeds in high traffic areas. (Page 43) Under Improvement Projects and Opportunity Sites (page 45) provides a “list of some
examples of high level projects intended to implement the long term development vision
expressed in this plan.
• New elementary School (Rankin) was listed as an example project (Page 45). The
school was constructed in 2017. The SKURP states, “Significant components of the
site plan include a perimeter road around the school and accessibility to future
residential areas. (Page 48)
E. Planning Board Finding of Conformity of the proposed project to the Kalispell Growth Policy Plan-It 2035
As mentioned previously, prior to approval of an urban renewal project, the local governing body shall submit the urban renewal project plan and project to the planning commission of the municipality for review and recommendations as to its conformity with the growth policy. Accordingly, the Planning Board is tasked with reviewing the project in conformance with the
City of Kalispell Growth Policy Plan-It 2035 and making such a recommendation to the City
Council. The Kalispell Growth Policy Plan-It 2035 supports the proposed project and the project can be found to be in compliance with the following plan provisions:
Chapter 8, Transportation – Goal 1, Provide a safe, efficient, accessible, and cost effective
transportation system that offers viable choices for moving people and goods throughout the community.
Chapter 9, Storm Water Management – Goal 5, Meet all requirements of the MS4 permit
including effluent limits, storm water management program and special conditions for impaired
waters and monitoring recording, and reporting requirements. Chapter 3, Community Growth and Design – Policy 8, Encourage the design of urban streets to
provide for convenient circulation, safe pedestrian access, and avoid excess road width that
encourages speeding and makes pedestrian crossing difficult. In summary, developments have increased traffic and pedestrian pressure in the area and corrective measures are needed to mitigate those negative impacts, as it is expected that there will
continue to be exponential growth on the south side of town. TIF monies will be used to provide
safe walkable routes for all pedestrians via sidewalks where ever they were missing in the Airport TIF District. The goal would be to connect, using existing public R/W Rankin School, the adjacent neighborhoods along Airport Road and Flathead High School/Legends field thus allowing improved pedestrian access throughout the district and into our Downtown. The project
will also eliminate blight by converting a city, unkempt vacant lot into a landscaped parking
facility allowed for multiple uses beneficial to the public. Those projects will mitigate existing traffic issues, increase pedestrian connectivity, improve public event parking, and undertake a storm water project in accordance with state regulations.
F. CONCLUSIONS: The Airport and 18th Street West urban renewal project does comply with the
expressed intent and the goals, policies and recommendations of the South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan and the Goals and Policies Kalispell Growth Policy Plan –It 2035.
G. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Board, based on the findings in
this report, determine that the Airport and 18th Street West Project is supported by the South
Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan and is in conformity with the Kalispell Growth Policy Plan-IT 2035 and that the Board forward this recommendation on to the Kalispell City Council.
H. ALTERNATIVES: Deny the request.
ATTACHMENTS: South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
APRIL 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Airport Alternatives ............................................................................24
Introduction ....................................................................................24
Alternative 1 – Keep Airport As-Is ................................................26
Alternative 2 – Close the Airport .................................................30
Alternative 3 – FAA Compliant Airport in Current Alignment 34
Alternative 4 – Incorporation into an Airport Authority ........36
Alternative 5 – Privatize the Airport ............................................37
Summary – Comparison of Alternatives ......................................38
Endnotes Assumptions and Sources ............................................40
IV. DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND STRATEGIES ....42
Land Use Strategies ............................................................................42
Development Guidelines ..................................................................43
Improvement Projects and Opportunity Sites ..........................45
Airport Redevelopment Opportunity ..........................................59
Tax Increment Financing ...................................................................63
Tax Increment Financing Projects ................................................63
Minimizing Hazards to Navigation ..............................................63
Increasing Economic Development Opportunities .................64
Financing Methods..............................................................................65
Tax Increment Financing ...............................................................65
Industrial Development Bonds .....................................................65
General Obligation Bonds .............................................................65
Private Financing ............................................................................65
Public/Private Partnerships ..........................................................65
State of Montana ...........................................................................65
Community Development Block Grants......................................65
Federal Grant Administration .......................................................66
Local Funding ..................................................................................66
City/County Partnerships ..............................................................66
Brownfields ............................................................................................67
V. APPENDIX A ..................................................................................68
Airport Alternatives Detailed Financial Tables and Pro-Formas .68
Alternative 3 as Previously Proposed ......................................................70
VI. APPENDIX B...................................................................................78
Improvement Project Planning Level Cost Estimates .............78
I. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................1
A Plan and a Vision ..............................................................................1
Description of District Boundaries .................................................1
Urban Renewal District ..................................................................1
Tax Increment Financing District (TIFD) .....................................1
History of the Airport..........................................................................4
History of Prior Planning Efforts .....................................................4
1996 Airport Layout plan (ALP) ....................................................5
1996 Kalispell City Airport/Athletic Complex Redevelopment Plan 5
1999 Phase I Master Plan Airport Feasibility Study ..................5
2012 Final Master Plan ...................................................................5
II. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ..............................7
Meetings and Workshops .................................................................7
2015 Project Kick Off ......................................................................7
Public Outreach Process ................................................................7
Summary of Public Outreach from the 2012 .............................7
Project Website ..............................................................................8
News and Media ..............................................................................8
Public Open Forums .......................................................................9
Comment Boards and Surveys ........................................................9
Emerging Trends and Themes .........................................................11
Summary .................................................................................................12
III. ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS .............................................................15
Executive Summary.............................................................................15
Introduction ..........................................................................................16
Existing Conditions ............................................................................17
Prior Airport Studies.......................................................................17
Airport and Airfield Configuration ..............................................17
Airport Role ......................................................................................17
Other Area Airports ........................................................................18
Aviation Activity at the Airport ....................................................18
Traffic Patterns ................................................................................19
Airport Constraints .........................................................................19
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: District Boundaries ...............................................................................iv
Figure 2: Regional Context Map .........................................................................2
Figure 3: Public/Private Airport Lands and Flood Hazard Areas ...................3
Figure 4: Planning Timeline .................................................................................4
Figure 5: Schedule of Public Outreach Events .................................................6
Figure 6: Comparison Between 2012 and 2015 Public Comments ...............7
Figure 7: Project Website Homepage .................................................................8
Figure 8: A Comment “Tag Cloud” .......................................................................9
Figure 9: Public Open House Flyer .....................................................................10
Figure 10: Example of an Informational Handout ............................................10
Figure 11: Public and Stakeholder Opinion on the Three Alternatives .........11
Figure 12: Recreational facilities..........................................................................13
Figure 13: Aviation and Non-aviation Development Opportunities .............14
Figure 14: Airport Development Alternatives Financial Summary ................17
Figure 15: Airport Financial History ....................................................................25
Figure 16: Baseline Financial Projections ...........................................................25
Figure 17: Existing Airport Capital Improvement Plan ....................................26
Figure 18: Alternative 1 Capital Costs and Resulting Revenue ......................27
Figure 19: Alternative 1 Revenue and Expense Summary ...............................27
Figure 20: Alternative 1 Comparison to Baseline..............................................29
Figure 21: Alternative 2 Capital Costs and Resulting Revenues .....................32
Figure 22: Alternative 2 Revenue and Expense Summary ...............................32
Figure 23: Alternative 2 Comparison to Baseline..............................................32
Figure 24: Airport Management Structure Comparison .................................36
Figure 25: Alternative Summary ..........................................................................38
Figure 26: Baseline and Alternative Returns on Investment...........................39
Figure 27: Existing Land Use Map ........................................................................41
Figure 28: Improvements Projects and Opportunity Sites Table ...................45
Figure 29: Improvements Projects and Opportunity Sites Map .....................46
Figure 30: Cemetery Road Improvement Concept ...........................................47
Figure 31: New Elementary School Concept .....................................................48
Figure 32: Dog Park Concept ................................................................................49
Figure 33: Community Park Concept ..................................................................50
Figure 34: Trail Expansion Concept .....................................................................51
Figure 35: Welcome to Kalispell Sign Concept ..................................................52
Figure 36: Highway 93 Business Park Design Example ....................................53
Figure 37: Highway 93 Business Park Concept ..................................................54
Figure 38: Aviation Business Park Concept ........................................................55
Figure 39: Park-N-Ride Trailhead Concept .........................................................56
Figure 40 : Relocated City Shop Complex Concept ..........................................57
Figure 41: 1st Ave Commercial District Concept ..............................................58
Figure 42: Land Use Alternative 1 for Airport Closure .....................................60
Figure 43: Land Use Alternative 2 for Airport Closure .....................................61
Figure 44: Concept for a New T-Hangar Complex ...................................62
Figure 45: 1990 and 2015 Aerial Imagery ..........................................................64
Figure 46: Starbucks Brownfields Project...........................................................67
Figure A1: Alternative 3 Revenue and Expense Summary ..............................71
Figure A2: Alternative 3 Comparison to Baseline .............................................71
Figure A3: Alternative 3 Capital Costs and Resulting Revenues ....................71
S. Kalispell Urban Renewal District
Tax Increment Finance District
N01/2 Miles1/4 Miles1/8 Miles
230 Acres
(TIF Dist.)
720 Acres
(Urban Renewal
Dist.)
Figure 1: The South Kalispell Urban Renewal District and TIFD Boundaries
April 2016
1
The City of Kalispell contracted with CTA in December of 2014 to further the
planning effort within the South Kalispell Urban Renewal Planning Area.
The Plan is a result of the failed referendum in November of 2013 related to
the FAA funding opportunity and upgrades to Kalispell City Airport.
The City’s Growth Policy and Tax Increment Financing District (TIFD) outline
the City’s goals and objectives for this planning area. The Growth Policy
encourages efficient use of space, orderly growth consistent with high
quality of life, fiscal soundness, environmental conservation and community
vitality; while the TIF District encourages ‘increasing development
opportunities, funding mechanism for the Airport, minimizing hazards to
navigation, developing an airport layout plan, and establishing a priority
schedule for plan implementation’.
Facing unprecedented growth, the area faces a variety of issues such as
traffic congestion along Highway 93, lack of pedestrian facilities, parks, and
an uncertain future with the Airport, and a need for additional police and
fire services. While these challenges can seem overwhelming, they can
also provide an opportunity to create a vision unique in character to South
Kalispell.
The South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan will incorporate the work done in
prior planning efforts and will be consistent with the City’s Growth Policy
while providing new ideas, guidance, and strategies for implementation.
DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
Urban Renewal District
The South Kalispell Urban Renewal District is an approximately 720-acre
area partially within the southern corporate limits of the City of Kalispell
and Flathead County. The area lies in the broad plain of the Stillwater and
Flathead Rivers and their tributaries, lending its topography to be generally
flat or gently sloping. The land drains water to Ashley Creek on the western
and southern boundary, and to the Stillwater River just outside the area’s
eastern boundary. Elevations range from about 2,950 to 3,000 feet above
sea level. The roughly triangular district itself is bound by Airport Road on
the west, Cemetery Road on the south, Willow Glen Road on the south and
east, 3rd Avenue and US Highway 93 on the north and east and extending
north the intersection of 13th Street, US Highway 93 and Airport Road.
Due to the relatively flat terrain in comparison to the surrounding mountain
peaks, the Urban Renewal District area is subject to flooding and FEMA
Flood Insurance Rate Maps indicate a flood hazard area exists around the
Ashley Creek drainage.
There are an estimated 450 parcels of land within the Urban Renewal District
boundaries, with the smallest being 100 square feet and the largest being
27 acres. Average parcel size in the Urban Renewal District is 1.6 acres,
much larger than that of the City of Kalispell (0.39 acres, or 17,000 square
feet). Historically, the district was platted as Bakers Southside Addition,
Browns Addition, Poston Addition, Purdys Addition, Ryker Addition and
Daley Field Subdivision, with Courtyard Subdivision and Diamond Lils
Condo Subdivision being two of the newer subdivisions. Approximately
46% of the Urban Renewal District is in the City of Kalispell with the
remaining 54% in Flathead County.
Most of the land in the Urban Renewal District is privately owned, many
of the largest parcels are public: about 36% is owned by the city, county,
federal government or school district. Roughly 31% of the Urban Renewal
District is in commercial use, 17% is vacant and 11% is used for residential.
Tax Increment Financing District (TIFD)
The TIFD comprises approximately 266 parcels over roughly 230 acres
including and surrounding the Kalispell City Airport. Average parcel size
within the TIFD is 0.87 acres. There are an estimated 103 individual property
owners in the TIFD, with the largest being the City of Kalispell, which owns
about 58% of the total land area.
A PLAN AND A VISION
INTRODUCTION
2
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
US H
w
y
2
U
S
H
w
y
9
3
State Hwy 35
0 1 2 Miles1/2 N
City
of
Kalispell
F LATHEADCOUNTY
South Kalispell
Urban Renewal
District
Foys Lake
Flathe a d R i v e rA
s
h
l
e
y Creek
Still
w
a
t
e
r River
Figure 2: Regional Context Map
April 2016
3
S. Kalispell Urban Renewal District (722 Ac)
City-Owned Airport Parcels: 9.9% (71.4 Ac)
City- and Privately-OwnedAirport Parcels: 12.2% (87.4 Ac)
Flood Hazard Area
0 1/2 Miles1/4 Miles1/8 Miles N
U
S
H
w
y
9
3
U
S
H
w
y
9
3
B
y
p
a
s
s
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
R
d
18th St
Twin Acres Dr
Lower Valley Rd
Kelly Rd
14th St
3
r
d
A
v
e
Cemetery Rd
Figure 3: Public/Private Airport Lands and Flood Hazard Areas
4
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
1960’s and 1970’s
In the mid 1960’s, the Kalispell Airport Association was a few private aircraft
owners and interested business men who entered into a lease with the City
to manage the Airport. By 1986, management was turned back over to the
City. (T. Jentz chronological history).
Beginning with the 1979 Mini-Master Plan the City recognized the need
to address Airport operation and maintenance as well as necessary
safety upgrades and day to day management procedures. Some of the
recommendations included overlaying the Airport runway, acquiring
additional property to extend the Airport clear zone, and fencing the
Airport.
1993 Kalispell City Airport Neighborhood Plan
In 1993, Montana Planning Consultants of Kalispell, MT prepared
the Kalispell City Airport Neighborhood Plan. This plan had similar
recommendations to extend the runway, remove hazards from the runway
clear zone, and recommended airport zoning regulations for compatible
land use be adopted. City Council adopted the plan on September 19,
1994.
HISTORY OF PRIOR PLANNING EFFORTSHISTORY OF THE AIRPORT
1911: First flight from current airport location
1911 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015
1928: City purchases 135 acres of land for the airport
1960s: Kalispell Airport
Association formed
1978: Airport “Mini-Master Plan”
1986: Airport management turned back to city from Kalispell Airport Association
1994: Kalispell City Airport Neighborhood Plan
1996: Kalispell City Airport/Athletic Complex Redev. Plan
1996: Airport Layout Plan
1999: Phase I Master Plan
2012: Final Master Plan
2015: S. Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan
2013: Airport Referendum
Figure 4: Planning Timeline
The Kalispell City Airport (Airport) has a long and rich history nestled in the
back country of Northwest Montana. Kalispell is the only city in Montana
that has two public use airports (2012 Master Plan Update pg. 121).
Kalispell City Airport is a city owned public use general aviation airport that
is located south of the downtown central business district of Kalispell and
encompasses approximately 71+ acres of property. The Airport has been in
operation since 1911 when the first known flight from the immediate area
of Kalispell was made on June 21, 1911 from the fairgrounds by Eugene Ely
in a Curtis bi-plane (1979 Kalispell City Airport Mini-Master Plan; Montana
and the Sky, Frank W. Wiley, 1966). The airport has been in its present
location for more than 83 years and is one of the oldest and largest General
Aviation airports in the State of Montana (City of Kalispell website). The
history of the Airport is summarized in Chapter 3 of the 2012 Final Master
Plan.
The planning history for the Kalispell City Airport started back in 1928
when the City purchased 135 acres from various property owners on the
south end of Kalispell. Of the 135 acres purchased in 1928 approximately
71 acres remain in city ownership as the other land parcels have been
sold for various city projects throughout the years (1999 Phase I Master
Plan Airport Feasibility Study prepared by Morrison – Maierle, Inc.). The
following summary of studies shows that the City has recognized the need
to keep the Airport and the subsequent development of south Kalispell in
the forefront as the City continued to grow.
April 2016
5
The Plan recommended that airport improvements be financed by a
combination of a TIFD and by the sale of airport properties (ball fields,
under used Highway 93 frontage, etc.). The redevelopment plan was
adopted by the City Council in July, 1996 along with the South Kalispell
Airport TIFD, which expires July 1, 2020.
1999 Phase I Master Plan Airport Feasibility Study
The Phase I Master Plan prepared by Morrison – Maierle, Inc. was partially
funded by a FAA planning grant. The plan developed 5 alternatives and
provided conceptual costs for each. Alternatives included upgrading the
Airport, moving the runway, rotating the runway, extending the runway,
acquiring land for redevelopment, and relocating the Airport.
The plan recommended Alternate 2. This included a five-degree rotation
of the runway, moving the runway south 900 feet and construction a B-2
airport with an initial 3,600 foot runway. The plan was adopted November
1, 1999.
2012 Final Master Plan
In 2012, Stelling Engineers, Inc. prepared a 2012 Final Master Plan. The plan
was an extensive process which included a detailed analysis of the Airports
inventory, forecasted use, facility requirements, improvement alternatives,
development constraints, and a capital improvement program. The
planning process also included an extensive public
outreach component. City Council adopted
the plan in April of 2012.
1996 Airport Layout Plan (ALP)
The city council directed Pecia and Associate to develop an Airport Layout
Plan (ALP) that would comply with FAA standards to assist the City in future
planning. The Plan completed in August 1996 reiterated many of the same
projects: relocate the runway 900 feet to the south; provide for a B-2 design;
widen the runway from 60 to 75 feet; lengthen the runway to 4,300 feet.
A March 28, 1998 council action limited the City to no more than $1 million
dollars in local funds for airport activities - either as matching funds with
FAA or to be used for local improvements. (T. Jentz chronological summary).
1996 Kalispell City Airport/Athletic Complex Redevelopment Plan
The Kalispell City Airport/Athletic Complex Redevelopment Plan prepared
by Kalispell Planning, Economic & Community Development Office took
the 1993 Neighborhood Plan and suggested the following goals such as
minimizing hazards to airport navigation; developing an Airport Layout
Plan; increasing development opportunities on nearby properties;
promoting compatible land uses in and around the Airport; establishing
funding mechanisms for airport operations; and establishing a priority
for plan implementation. Projects included: extend runway to the south
to obtain 4,700 feet and purchase property; remove objects within the
Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) and purchase private property located
within the protection zone; fence the Airport; relocate 16 baseball and
soccer fields in the vicinity of the Airport.
1911: First flight from current airport location
19111920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015
1928: City purchases 135 acres of land for the airport
1960s: Kalispell Airport
Association formed
1978: Airport “Mini-Master Plan”
1986: Airport management turned back to city from Kalispell Airport Association
1994: Kalispell City Airport Neighborhood Plan
1996: Kalispell City Airport/Athletic Complex Redev. Plan
1996: Airport Layout Plan
1999: Phase I Master Plan
2012: Final Master Plan
2015: S. Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan
2013: Airport Referendum
JANUARY 12
FEBRUARY 11-13
FEBRUARY 16
FEBRUARY 23
FEBRUARY 2015
MARCH 3
MARCH 10
MARCH 10
MARCH 11-12
MARCH 13
MEETING DATES
2015
DESCRIPTIONJAN FEB MAR APR
Mass mailing of public open forum invitation to all
property owners within a 100 foot boundary of the
airport
KGEZ Radio Interview
Community Open House Forum
Media interviews with the Flathead Beacon, Daily
Interlake, and local TV stations
Personal telephone calls and interviews with
additional primary stakeholder contacts, including
all hangar lessees/owners
Mass email group was created to keep all
interested parties connected to the project
Advertisements regarding the project and the
public open forum were placed in the Flathead
Beacon and Daily Interlake
Project Kick-o Meeting
Primary Stakeholder Meetings
Launched Project Website/Survey
Community Open House Forum Design
Charette/Workshop
Presentation to City Boards on Preliminary
Findings Report
APRIL 7
APRIL 29
Figure 5: Schedule of Public Outreach Events
April 2016
7
2
Summary of Public Outreach from the 2012 Airport Master Plan
Update
The 2012 Airport Master Plan Update included public open house workshops
where 89 comments were received from the public (2012 Master Plan pg.
124). Responses included those that represented businesses as well as
individual responses from within and around the surrounding community.
The responses in 2012 were overwhelming in favor of keeping and
upgrading the Airport. The public responses were in contrast to the failed
referendum in 2013 which negated the council’s decision to accept FAA
money and upgrade the Airport per the recommendations in the Master
Plan.
The 2015 public outreach process has yielded similar results, with the
public in favor of keeping the Airport and upgrading it to meet safety and
compliance standards for general aviation airports. The question on how
to fund these improvements remains.
2015 Project Kick Off
January 12th, 2015 kicked off the official South Kalispell Urban Renewal
planning effort with team members from the City of Kalispell, CTA, and
Mead & Hunt meeting to discuss the goals and strategies for this large land
planning exercise. The table top planning exercise included looking at the
larger picture of South Kalispell with the goal to create a unique character
and design by creating a distinction between the developments north of
Kalispell and the Core Area Downtown Plan. South Kalispell desires to be
a uniquely identified destination that meets the needs of South Kalispell
residents as well as the larger Flathead Valley area including the tourism
economy.
The primary focus of this large land planning exercise was to discuss goals
and strategies for the current and future development opportunities
within the South Kalispell Urban Renewal District, while creating a unique
character and livability to the South Kalispell area.
Public Outreach Process
Early in the planning process, the project team identified several primary
stakeholder groups representing a large and diverse constituent of
Kalispell businesses and residents as the target audience for the first public
outreach effort. During the week of February 11th–13th, 2015, CTA staff
met individually with members from this group including the Chamber
of Commerce, Kalispell Downtown Association, Montana West Economic
Development, Kalispell Convention & Visitors Bureau, Kalispell School
District, Kalispell Quiet Skies, City Airport Advisory Board and Urban
Renewal Committee, public works and parks departments, Flathead Valley
Community College, Glacier Park International Airport, Red Eagle Aviation,
Kalispell Regional Medical Center, Hilton Garden Inn, and Aero Inn.
Additional personal telephone contacts were made to individual airport
hangar owners/lessees, and other business enterprises including REMAX
Real Estate Developers, Fun Beverage, Greg Goode Trailer Sales, Flathead
County Fairgrounds, Flathead Valley Hockey Association, and Flathead
Area Young Professionals.
MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
70%
30%
74%
26%
Keep Airport
2015
2012
Do Not Keep Airport
Figure 6: Comparison Between 2012 and 2015 Public Comments
8
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
The week of February 23rd, 2015 individual mailers were sent to all property
owners within the 100 foot boundary of the City of Kalispell Airport inviting
them to the public open forum on March 10th, 2015 at the Hilton Garden
Inn and providing information regarding the project website and survey.
Project Website
As social media becomes the new ‘norm’ for keeping a large part of a
communities constituency connected, CTA created a project specific
website for the South Kalispell Urban Planning effort. This project website
was launched the middle of February and remained updated and active
through the planning process. The website provided a key public outreach
component by providing a survey specific to South Kalispell and the urban
planning effort.
Questions were asked in a manner that would provide holistic feedback on
the development of South Kalispell and also gauge the temperature of the
community’s commitment to the Kalispell City Airport.
The survey and public outreach effort had over 100 responses and
comments and the results have been combined with the primary
stakeholder interviews and public open forum interviews and included on
the Public Input Survey Response Board.
Project Website Link:
http://southkalispellurbanrenewal.com/
News and Media
Both of Kalispell’s local newspapers (the Flathead Beacon and Daily
Interlake) do a great job engaging in local community issues. Our project
team was in contact with the local papers regarding the planning effort
including placing advertisements for the March 10th, 2015 open house
and staying in contact regarding the Plan’s progress and milestones.
Newspaper articles covered the planning efforts.
Local radio host John Hendrix did a radio spot on March 3rd, 2015 covering
the open forum and continues to follow the plan and progress of the plan.
Local TV stations also took an interest and covered the public open forum
on March 10th, 2015.
Figure 7: Project Website
Homepage
April 2016
9
Public Open Forums
There were two public forums held at the Hilton Garden Inn. The first
public forum on March 10th, 2015 yielded a large turnout with interactive
participation using post-it note boards maps and surveys. The second
public open forum held on April 7th yielded a smaller turnout however
most of the attendees were engaging for the first time.
The public outreach process yielded a dynamic yet consistent theme of
comments that are weighted in response shown on the Public Results
Survey Board. Priorities seem to be increasing the quality of livability in
the South Kalispell area that includes connectivity of streets, bike and
pedestrian pathways, and increased park and trail use. Comments related
to the Kalispell City Airport were mixed with slightly more opinions favored
in keeping the Airport and making it more sustainable.
During the public meetings, several comment boards were introduced to
gather broad comments and opinions. An online survey provided further
opportunity to gather comments, themes and opinions.
The following are examples of the questions posed on the boards and
online survey:
:Q What do you like the most/least about the Airport?
:Q What environmental issues most concern you?
:Q What is the biggest change (good or bad) you have seen in the past 5
years?
:Q Name some recreational facilities you would like to see?
:Q What kinds of public services, infrastructure, housing or commerce
would you like to see in the South Kalispell area?
Response highlights included:
• “I am neutral and sympathize with both sides”
• “We like watching the planes take off and land”
• “Noise and danger from airplanes is unacceptable”
• “The Airport is critical to this community”
• “It is a tax pit, close it!”
• “Economic driver for Kalispell”
One of the key pieces of input gathered regarded the general notion of
the Airport’s future. Three alternatives were presented: 1) keep the Airport
as currently configured, 2) bring the Airport into FAA compliance, and 3)
phase out airport operations.
Keep Airport
Parks & Trails
CommercialEntrance
FAA Compliance/Funding
Phase Out Airport
Housing & Mixed Use
Tax BurdenTraffic
Dog Park
AgricultureClean It Up
Incompatible Use
Noise
Plane WatchingSchools
Tourism Walkability
Air
Helicopters are a Nuisance Helicopters are Not a Nuisance
Coffee/Restaurants/Grocery Convention Center
Downtown Connection
Fitness
Office & Industrial
Pilot Accessibility
Water
Figure 8: A Comment “Tag Cloud” that emphasizes the most
frequently mentioned issues, topics or concerns from the public
comment posting boards. The size of the word correlates to the
number of times that topic was mentioned.
COMMENT BOARDS AND SURVEYS
10
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Urban Renewal Plan
SOUTH KALISPELL
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Since the late 1970’s there have been a number of studies completed regarding the future of the City of Kalispell Airport. These studies have included a thorough analysis of the existing condition of the Airport as well as identified significant barriers related to the redevelopment
of the Airport. Over the years, basic operation and maintenance of the Airport has allowed it to remain in operation, however, the current con-dition of the Airport does not meet the minimum FAA design standards and therefore is not eligible to receive federal funding via grants or low
interest loans.
With minimal capital investment over the last several decades, the Airport is facing a future that will require significant financial capital to
mitigate these current barriers.
PREVIOUS STUDIES• 1979 Kalispell City Airport Mini-Master Plan prepared by T.A.P., Inc.; Avia-
tion & Economic Consultants• 1993 Kalispell city Airport Neighborhood Plan• 1996 Kalispell City Airport/Athletic Complex Redevelopment Plan Analy-sis prepared by the Kalispell Planning and Economic & Community
Development Department.• 1999 Feasibility Master Plan Study prepared by Morrison – Maierle, Inc.• 2001 Site Selection Study prepared by Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / Federal Aviation Administration and Montana Aeronautics Division• 2002 Final Environmental Assessment prepared by Robert Peccia & As-sociates, Inc.• 2012 City of Kalispell Airport - Master Plan Update - Final
HISTORY OF AVIATIONThe Kalispell City Airport has a long and rich history with the first known flight from the immediate area of Kalispell made on June 21, 1911 from the fairgrounds by Eugene Ely in a
Curtis bi-plane (Source: 1979 Kalispell City Air-port Mini-Master Plan; Montana and the Sky, Frank W. Wiley, 1966) and has been in its present location for more
than 83 years. It is one of the oldest and larg-est General Aviation airports in the State
of Montana (Source:
City of Kalispell web-site).
CTA Architects EngineersStephanie RayPh. 406.222.0104 ext. 1606Em. stephanieray@ctagroup.com
ProjectContact:
0 330 660 1320 FT N
Urban Residential
SOUTH KALISPELL URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICTGrowth Policy Land Use
Public Open Space,Sewer Treatment Plant, CemeteryCommercial
High Density Residential City Airport
City Limits
South Kalispell/Airport Redevelopment Area
Current Airport Tax Increment Finance District
Industrial
US H
W
Y
9
3
S
WILLO
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
CEMETERY RD
KELLY RD
3RD
A
V
E
E
13TH ST E5TH
A
V
E
E
S W
O
O
D
L
A
N
D
D
R
STAG LN
18TH ST E 18TH ST E
14TH ST E
1ST
A
V
E
W
TEAL DR
BISON DR
1ST AVE
E
HAVEN DR
4TH
A
V
E
E
WOODLAND AVE
TWIN ACRES DR
WELF LN
MERGANSER DR
2ND
A
V
E
E
1ST
A
V
E
E
COND
O
R
D
R
BLUES
T
O
N
E
D
R
SHEFFERD LN
6TH
A
V
E
E
7TH A
V
E
E
EAGLE DRAIRPO
R
T
R
D
RUSSELL DR
LEHI LN
MUS
K
R
A
T
D
R
COOT
C
T
MEADOWLARK
SOU
T
H
F
I
E
L
D
D
R
MALL
A
R
D
D
R
RIVER GLEN CT
QUINCY LOOP
WIDGE
O
N
C
T
17TH ST W
SOUTHFIELD LN
BEGG PARK DR
S WOO
D
L
A
N
D
D
R
EAGL
E
D
R
S M
A
I
N
S
T
CURRENT
CTA has been hired by the City of Kalispell to provide the City of Kalispell, Airport Advisory Board, and Community with guidance for the future development of South Kalispell. The objective of this plan is to assist the Community with the future planning and vision of South
Kalispell that includes an analysis of the Airport’s future development
options. The final document will be the South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan.
One of CTA’s primary roles is to collect public input from as many stake-
holders as possible. CTA will be meeting individually with stakeholders as well as larger forum public meetings to facilitate feedback regarding the future of the Airport and vision for South Kalispell.
The effort will include a ‘live’ project website that will encourage public comment as well as keep the planning process as dynamic as possible. Public outreach, input, and feedback are critical to the successful outcome of the South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan.
FUTUREThe future of the Airport will be influenced by feedback received from the community. This plan is an interactive process. Be part of the
solution and help create the future vision of your community!
0 330 660 1320 FT N
Residential
SOUTH KALISPELL URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICTExisting Land Use
Industrial
Mobile Home Park
Commercial Professional Office or Health Care
Government Facility
Sewer Treatment Plant
Open Space
Airport, Golf Course, Fairgrounds
City Limits
South Kalispell/Airport Redevelopment Area
Current Airport Tax Increment Finance District
US
H
W
Y
9
3
S
WILLO
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
CEMETERY RD
KELLY RD
3RD
A
V
E
E
13TH ST E5TH
A
V
E
E
S W
O
O
D
L
A
N
D
D
R
STAG LN
18TH ST E 18TH ST E
14TH ST E
1ST
A
V
E
W
TEAL DR
BISON DR
1ST AVE
E
HAVEN DR
4TH
A
V
E
E
WOODLAND AVE
TWIN ACRES DR
WELF LN
MERGANSER DR
2ND
A
V
E
E
1ST
A
V
E
E
COND
O
R
D
R
BLUES
T
O
N
E
D
R
SHEFFERD LN
6TH
A
V
E
E
7TH A
V
E
E
EAGLE DRAIRPO
R
T
R
D
RUSSELL DR
LEHI LN
MUS
K
R
A
T
D
R
COOT
C
T
MEADOWLARK
SOU
T
H
F
I
E
L
D
D
R
MALL
A
R
D
D
R
RIVER GLEN CT
QUINCY LOOP
WIDGE
O
N
C
T
17TH ST W
SOUTHFIELD LN
BEGG PARK DR
S WOOD
L
A
N
D
D
R
EAGL
E
D
R
S M
A
I
N
S
T
Figure 10: Example of an
Informational Handout
Community OPEN HOUSE
Tuesday APRIL 7th, From 2:00pm to 7:00pm
Hilton Garden Inn, 1840 US Hwy 93 | Kalispell ,MT
Please join us for a
South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan
The City of Kalispell has hired CTA to as
s
i
s
t
i
n
c
r
e
a
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
f
u
t
u
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
f
o
r
S
o
u
t
h
K
a
l
i
s
p
e
l
l
.
T
h
i
s
effort includes determining the future of
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
K
a
l
i
s
p
e
l
l
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
.
T
h
e
t
i
m
e
i
s
n
o
w
t
o
b
e
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
solution and help create the future vision of
y
o
u
r
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.
P
l
e
a
s
e
j
o
i
n
u
s
,
w
e
w
a
n
t
t
o
h
e
a
r
f
r
o
m
y
o
u
.
Please visit the project website for more informa
t
i
o
n
:
http://southkalispellurbanrenewal.com/
Stephanie Ray
Senior Planner
stephanieray@ctagroup.com
406.222.0104 ext. 1606
Guide Gro
w
t
h
i
n
Y
o
u
r
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
!
developme
n
t
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
s
open space
transporta
t
i
o
n
coordinatio
n
preservati
o
n
land use
historic re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
natural res
o
u
r
c
e
s
economic
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
cultural re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
view corri
d
o
r
s
infrastruc
t
u
r
e
transporta
t
i
o
n
financial s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
inter-agen
c
y
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
developme
n
t
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
s
tourism
agricultura
l
l
a
n
d
local servi
c
e
s
open spac
e
affordable
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
developm
e
n
t
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
s
Figure 9: Public
Open House Flyer
April 2016
11
• COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
The public commented that uses such as fitness centers, coffee,
restaurants, grocery, light industry, and office were desired commercial
uses in the neighborhood.
• CITY AND AIRPORT ENTRANCE/SIGNAGE ISSUES
South Kalispell lacks a defined entrance into the City. The public
supported an entrance sign. The airport entrance and access also
lacks visibility and could be improved.
• TRAFFIC
Citizens considered that increased development would intensify
traffic on south Kalispell’s streets.
• SCHOOLS
Noted was the importance of quality neighborhood schools, as
well as their school’s ability to serve new students in the future.
Comments also centered around the school spurring new residential
developments which would increase traffic.
• CONVENTION CENTER
Additional conference or convention space would increase the area’s
strength as a commercial district.
• PRESERVING AGRICULTURE
Agriculture will remain a key contributing factor to the region’s
economy and should be preserved to maintain existing community
character.
• ALTERNATIVES
The three main alternatives emerged as follows: 1) Keep Airport as
Currently Configured, 2) Bring Airport into FAA Compliance, and 3)
Phase out Airport Operations.
Figure 11: Public and Stakeholder Opinion on the Three Alternatives
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
4
4
5
5
66 7
Airport entrance signage
Improve Cemetery Rd
Keep airport as currently congured
Improve Airport Rd
Recreation ball parks/elds/ice rink
History and heritage of aviation
Hotel district
Dog park
Commercial development
Fitness center
Coee, restaurants, grocery
Light industry, oce
Entrance signage
Convention center
Preserving agriculture
Connect to downtown core
Accessibility for local pilots
South Kalispell Entrance
Tra c
Amusement park
Phase out airport operations
Mixed use housing
Schools
Tourism destination
More walkability in S. Kalispell
Sightseeing/plane watching
Bring airport into FAA complianceClean up existing businessesTrails/parks/bike pathsTrend or Theme
Alternatives
No. of Times Mentioned
26%
32%
42%
Keep Airport
as Currently
Phase Out
Airport
Operations
Bring Airport
into FAA
Compliance
Figure 11 above illustrates the breakdown of opinion.
Outside of meetings, workshops and forums, the public and stakeholders
had access to the online survey creating an opportunity for a larger reach
of the public. The survey generally yielded more detailed comments, as
participants could submit responses on their own time.
EMERGING TRENDS AND THEMES
The following represents the trends and themes that emerged from the
various input and public participation sessions:
• TRAILS/PARKS/BIKE PATHS OR DOG PARK
Recreational facilities like bike and pedestrian trails or dog parks
attract people to an area from nearby neighborhoods. This idea was
widely supported by the public.
• MIXED USE HOUSING
Housing provides the rooftops needed to support various commercial
retail or office uses. New amenities can also be introduced when
designed with a mixed use component. There was interest in offering
different housing types and levels of affordability.
12
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
• IMPROVE LOCAL ROADS
The degradation of existing roads such as Airport Rd and Cemetery Rd
is seen as a concern.
• CLEAN UP EXISTING BUSINESSES
Having a clean and uncluttered commercial environment is important
to keeping and attracting new business as well as promoting quality
of life. Some comments centered around cleaning up blighted
properties and incentivizing businesses to improve their business
frontage and curb appeal.
• RECREATION: BALL FIELDS, ICE RINK,
AMUSEMENT PARK, SIGHTSEEING, PLANE
WATCHING
Numerous and diverse active recreational facilities promote the public
health and welfare. People desired being able to recreate where they
live. Less travel time to recreational areas such as parks and ballfields
was desired.
• WALKABILITY AND CONNECTIONS TO S.
KALISPELL AND DOWNTOWN CORE
Attracting neighborhood amenities like local commercial uses
complements promoting bike/pedestrian facilities in creating
a well-connected, walkable environment. Creating a walkable
community was a very popular comment.
• HERITAGE OF AVIATION AND ACCESSIBILITY
FOR LOCAL PILOTS
Maintaining the small neighborhood airport activities will continue
to allow ease of access for local pilots, a long-standing amenity in the
area.
• HOTEL AND TOURISM DISTRICT
An opportunity exists to promote South Kalispell as a tourism
destination complete with abundant hotels and commercial
amenities. Most of the hotel accommodations for the City of Kalispell
are located in the south urban renewal area.
SUMMARY
The public outreach process for the South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan
prompted concerned business groups and citizens alike to look specifically
at the South Kalispell area. While being one large land mass, there are two
very unique opportunities within this area. South Kalispell as a whole offers
a combined mix of industrial, commercial, residential and City uses with
the stronger theme being commercial and industry.
The second distinct use within this larger area is the operation of the Kalispell
City Airport. The general consensus was weighted in favor of keeping the
Airport, with the concern focusing on the Airport becoming more fiscally
constrained and able to support annual operation and maintenance as
well as reinvestment projects. It was clear that the community did not want
the Airport to become a tax burden.
Strong public opinion supported a walkable community with trails and
parks; an entrance sign into South Kalispell; mixed use development
including commercial and residential as well as light industry was also
very popular. There was also interest in incentivizing existing businesses to
make their business more attractive.
April 2016
13
Figure 12: Recreational facilities, like the Begg Park baseball fields,
were mentioned as a valuable community asset in south Kalispell.
(Photo: K. Brady)
14
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Air
p
o
r
t
R
d
CI
T
Y
O
F
K
A
L
I
S
P
E
L
L
F
L
A
T
H
E
A
D
C
O
U
N
T
Y
U
S
H
W
Y
9
3
S
3r
d
A
v
e
E
Kelly Rd
5
t
h
A
v
e
E
Bison
D
r
Stag Ln
Teal Dr
Southfie
l
d
L
n
BLUE: Aviation compatible
business development
opportunities
GREEN: Non-aviation
business development
opportunity (city could
repurpose for commercial
development)
City Limits
Figure 13: Aviation and Non-aviation Development Opportunities
15
April 20163
As we have seen in the public outreach process there was no clear
overwhelming desire from the community to close the Airport. The public
seems to support continued operation of the Airport if two goals are met:
1) the Airport is not expanded to take additional commercial aircraft; 2)
the Airport does not become a tax burden to the community. The only
definitive decision made by the public was to vote down FAA funding to
expand the Airport.
During the “analysis of options” exercise, each of the alternatives presented
below contained a series of decisions that would need to be made by
the political body. There was no alternative clearly directing a decision to
continue operating the Airport in the future, nor to close the Airport. What
was made clear during the analysis is that this general aviation airport
cannot sustain itself without full development of available property,
and FAA participation in capital improvement projects. Without FAA
participation in capital projects, the Airport operates at a loss even with
full development of revenue producing property.
Airports are an essential public facility, meaning that they provide benefit to
the community beyond their core function. General aviation (GA) airports
support recreational, business and flight training aviation activities on a
regular basis. They provide jobs for those that work at the airport, and the
services and products purchased by airport businesses contribute to the
local economy. Business GA users may come to the region in support of
other industries (such as business managers and owners), and although
their economic contribution may not be directly tied to the Airport, their
activities in the region make a substantial economic contribution and
the Airport facilitates their access to the community. Beyond day to day
activities, airports play a vital role in emergency response, law enforcement,
and disaster management when needed.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS
If the city wishes to keep the Airport an active and viable community
asset there will need to be a concerted political decision and financial
commitment from the City. Efforts to reinvest in capital projects and create
additional long term revenue generating sources will need to be a priority.
Revenue options include: increased business opportunities, taxation, and
FAA funding.
The option of selling and redeveloping the Airport is a potential alternative
for the City as a long term program to eliminate a financial and managerial
commitment. When making this decision the City should weigh the
discernible value of the Airport and its broader reaching impacts to the
community. Additional considerations should include the large amount of
available developable land in the greater Kalispell area. At this time, there
is no shortage of developable properties within the North or South areas
of Kalispell. If the Airport is closed for redevelopment, the redevelopment
of this large land mass could create a long-term blighted property that
may sit vacant for many of years until development pressure increased. It
should be noted however that there is a considerable amount of existing
infrastructure in the form of water and sewer mains within the Airport
property making it attractive for development.
This report analyzes the financial, community and aviation-related impacts
of three improvement /reorganization alternatives for the Kalispell City
Airport (S27 or “the Airport”) and provides two additional alternatives that
would require further research and analysis. Improvement alternatives are
being considered because the City operates the Airport at a net loss, and
improvement projects are needed to extend the life of the Airport, and
to comply with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) design standards
should the Airport desire to accept FAA money in the future.
16
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
INTRODUCTION
In 2013, after years of airport studies, a plan was in place to bring the
Kalispell City Airport (S27 or “the Airport”) up to current Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) standards with 90% of the funding provided by the
FAA. The City Council voted to move forward with the planned projects;
however, a local voter referendum was passed which reversed the City
Council decision and ended the planned updates to the Airport. Since that
time the future of the Kalispell City Airport has been uncertain and the
Airport has lacked a long-term plan.
In late 2014 the City of Kalispell selected a consultant team to assist the
City with gathering public opinion and providing a long-term plan for the
southern area of Kalispell, including the Airport. As approximately 10%
(71.4 acres) of the study area is occupied by the Airport, the future of the
entire south Kalispell area is closely tied to the future of the Airport.
The report looked at near-term (five-year) capital costs and near-and
long-term (five years and beyond) operating cost and revenue projections.
The goal of this analysis is to weigh the needed and recommended
airport improvement projects against the financial feasibility and return
on investment of their implementation. The five alternatives include the
following:
1. Keep the Airport as it is using City funding
2. Close the Airport
3. Request FAA funding for the Airport in its current alignment
4. Incorporation into an Airport Authority
5. Privatization of the Airport
A “baseline” financial forecast was also prepared to show what it would cost
to keep the Airport running ‘as-is’ with only the necessary improvements.
The financial analysis includes a discounted cash flow analysis (DCFA)
and projections of capital costs. Operating costs and revenues grow in
proportion with the level of investment in infrastructure at the Airport.
There are too many unknowns and political uncertainties associated with
Alternative 4 and Alternative 5 so they are not included in the financial
analysis.
Alternatives 1 and 3 both make the necessary improvements to keep the
Airport operational while Alternative 2 closes the Airport and allows the
City to use this property for other uses, some of which could produce
revenue that is not accounted for in this analysis. Given what is known
today, both Alternative 2, Close the Airport, and Alternative 3, Request FAA
Funding, provide the same valuation in the long term, but for considerably
different levels of investment. In terms of capital investment, Alternative 2
costs $2 million more than Alternative 3. Key differences between the two
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONT.)
are that Alternative 2 eliminates the Airport and the financial obligation of
running it, while Alternative 3 will require the City to operate the Airport
for at least 20 years beyond the date of the last grant received. Alternative
2 will likely use up most, or all, of the available tax increment finance (TIF)
district funding that is available while Alternative 3 will make substantial
use of FAA funds. Alternatives two and three generate positive valuations,
and it is expected that full development of airport property will produce
a self-sustaining enterprise (with the assistance of FAA funds for future
development). Alternative 1 does not produce a positive valuation.
Alternative 2 eliminates the Airport as a transportation asset for the City
which may have economic impacts beyond airport finances. Should the
City be able to convert airport property to a revenue producing land use,
either via tax revenue or a city-owned use that generates more revenue
than the Airport, then Alternative 2 may provide additional financial
benefit over the other alternatives. Additional research will be needed on
Alternative 2 to make this assessment.
17
April 2016
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Prior Airport Studies
Major airport planning efforts and studies that have been completed over
the past two decades include the following studies.
• 1999 Airport Master Plan
• 2001 Site Selection Study
• 2002 Environmental Assessment
• 2008 Airport Economic Impact Study
• 2009 Airport Layout Plan Update
• 2012 Final Master Plan Update and Environmental Assessment
A recurring theme of these Studies is the Airport’s lack of compliance
with FAA standards. The Master Plans and subsequent Environmental
Assessment (EA) identified areas of the airfield which do not comply with
current FAA design standards. The Master Plans and EA provided a series of
programmatic approaches for compliance with FAA standards.
Airport and Airfield Configuration
The Airport is located immediately south of the Kalispell city core, 7 miles
north of Flathead Lake, 16 miles south of the City of Whitefish, and 23 miles
southwest of Glacier National Park. The Airport is a general aviation (GA)
facility with one 3,600 foot long runway (designated as Runway 13-31)
with a full length parallel taxiway on the east side and a partial parallel
taxiway on the west. The runway has no visual landing aids other than an
airport beacon and non-standard runway edge lights. The Airport has no
instrument landing procedures. Jet fuel and 100LL (100 low lead is the
common fuel for piston powered aircraft) are available at the Airport, as
well as major airframe and power plant repair.
Alternative Net Present Value (2015 $, 7% Rate)
DCFA Valuation Capital Costs
Baseline ($1,400,000)$900,000
1 ($1,300,000)$900,000
2 $300,000 $3,100,000
Figure 14: Airport Development Alternatives Financial Summary
Stakeholder and public outreach meetings were conducted in February and
March of 2015. Over one hundred people provided input over the course
of these public outreach sessions and 17 stakeholders met individually
with the consultant team.
This report is organized into two sections; Existing Conditions and
Alternatives and Financial Implications. The intent of this report is to
provide sufficient information on airport development options so that
decision makers can make a decision about the future of the Airport which
best reflects the future considerations of the City.
A discounted cash flow analysis tries to work out the value of an investment
today, based on projections of how much money the investment will make
in the future. Comparing the Alternatives using a discounted cash flow
analysis allows the City to consider the present value of an investments
future cash flow in order to arrive at a current fair value estimate for the
investment.
DCFA valuation equals sum of five year cash flows and ongoing (beyond five years) income.
18
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Airport Role
The FAA’s National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) classifies
Kalispell City Airport as a “local/basic airport.” The NPIAS defines a local/
basic airport as follows::
Local: Supplements local communities by providing access to local
and regional markets. These airports have moderate levels of activity
with some multiengine propeller aircraft. These airports average
about 33-based propeller-driven aircraft and no jets.
Basic: Supports general aviation activities, often serving aeronautical
functions within the local community such as emergency response
and access to remote communities. These airports have moderate
levels of activity with an average of 10 propeller-driven aircraft and
no jets.
The Airport plays many roles in the community, which are explained in
greater detail below.
A Base for Pilots. Kalispell City Airport is a convenient general aviation
airport for pilots who live or work in Kalispell and the greater Flathead
Valley.
A Point of Air Access for Visitors to the Region and Community.
Kalispell City Airport is a gateway for general aviation visitors to
northwest Montana and the nearby Glacier National Park. The region
draws tourists and business people alike.
A Place for Commerce and Business. Kalispell City Airport is used as a
gateway to the region for commerce and business, bringing additional
revenue and economic activity to the region.
A Base for Aviation-Related Community Emergency Services. Kalispell
City Airport is an important access point for emergency medical
transportation, search and rescue operations, law enforcement
operations, and other emergency services. Following natural disasters,
airports which are not damaged are utilized as a point of access for
emergency and disaster relief services.
Should ground transportation routes be blocked or impassable, air
transportation may be the only
access point for these services.
Other Area Airports
Glacier Park International Airport (KGPI)
is located eight miles to the northeast.
KGPI is a non-hub primary airport which
accommodates commercial air carrier
service, military and general aviation
activity for the region with its 9,007 foot
long primary runway and 3,504 foot
long crosswind runway. Other GA airports within 50 miles of Kalispell City
Airport that have paved runways include:
• Polson (8S1) - 30 miles
• Hot Springs (S09) – 36 miles
• Ronan (7S0) – 38 miles
• Libby (S59) – 48 miles
Aviation Activity at the Airport
Kalispell City Airport is a non-towered airport,
meaning that it does not have an air traffic
control tower. It is difficult to obtain accurate
counts of aircraft activity at non-towered
airports because there is not a system in place
to count every flight. The 2012 Final Master
Plan Update used 15,800 annual operations for the baseline, increasing
to 27,686 annual operations within the years 2023-2032. This equates
to approximately 42 operations per day on average. These numbers are
typical of a single runway GA airport of this size.
As is commonly the case with non-towered GA airports, the FAA Terminal
Area Forecast (TAF) projections show no change in aviation activity from
2015 levels. The reason for this is that FAA forecasters lack sufficient
local knowledge to predict changes. A more realistic forecast scenario is
A runway’s number reflects the magnetic heading of that runway. The magnetic heading is rounded to the nearest ten degrees and the zero is omitted. For example: runway 13-31 reflect magnetic headings of 130 and 310 degrees respectively.
An operation refers
to one take off or
one landing. A
touch - and - go
is counted as two
operations.
19
April 2016
that airport activity will respond to local economic and social changes.
According to County records 1, Flathead County experienced a 22%
increase in population between the years 2000 and 2010, or about 2% per
year on average. The City of Kalispell grew at 40% over the ten year period
from 2000 to 2010, or 4% per year on average. Population growth does not
directly correlate to demand for aviation; however, if population is growing
as a result of economic growth, then the region may experience growth in
aviation activity as well.
Traffic Patterns
Although the Airport only has one runway, there are two runway ends
which may be used for takeoffs and landings. Left traffic patterns are used
to serve both Runway 13 and 31. This means that aircraft can be expected to
fly on both the east and west sides of the Airport when arriving, departing
or performing touch-and-goes. Aircraft will also likely be arriving and
departing using straight-in and straight-out procedures aligned with the
runway.
When conditions warrant pilots are encouraged to observe the following
local noise abatement procedures and instructors are requested to
emphasize these procedures to their student pilots. Noise abatement
procedures are voluntary – not regulatory. The Airport encourages
pilots to use noise abatement procedures as part of its good neighbor
policy with surrounding land uses; however, there is no way of tracking
compliance, incentivizing compliance, and punishing non-compliance.
Noise abatement procedures are intended to reduce the level and duration
of aircraft noise exposure by noise sensitive land uses, such as schools and
educational facilities, residences, and places of worship.
• The preferred “No Wind” take-off runway is Runway 13.
• The preferred “No Wind” full stop landing runway is Runway 31.
• When departing RWY 13, and leaving the traffic pattern, aircraft
should climb straight out, avoiding the KGEZ radio towers, and
proceed enroute.
• When departing RWY 31, and leaving the traffic pattern, if
practicable, aircraft should make a 60 degree turn left or right and
climb to cruise altitude.
• After take-off, reduce power to recommended climb settings as soon
as practical. Slight power reductions will significantly reduce noise
levels.
• When practicing touch and go landings at night, pilots are
encouraged to use the facilities at KGPI.
• In constant-speed-propeller aircraft, if safety and the operators
manual permits, avoid using high rpm settings in the traffic pattern.
Airport Constraints
The Airport has a series of existing constraints. Some of these are related to
off-airport land uses, while others are safety and setback standards which
are not met. This section focuses on those constraints related to the Airport
in its existing configuration, not the planned developments recommended
in the 1999 and 2012 Master Plans.
Part 77 Obstructions
Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 77, is titled Safe, Efficient
Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace. Part 77 specifies the
details of a series of three-dimensional airspace surfaces which radiate
from an airport. Part 77 provides the FAA with standards for designating
penetrations to these surfaces as airspace obstructions.
20
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
The 1999 Airport Master Plan and 2012 Final Master Plan Update identify
two broadcast antenna towers as being penetrations to the Part 77 airspace
surfaces and the FAA has designated these towers as airspace obstructions.
The two towers penetrate the existing horizontal surface and the Runway
31 approach surface. If left unresolved, the obstructions would continue
to pose a hazard to air navigation and could prevent the Airport from ever
obtaining instrument approach procedures.
Runway Protection Zones
Runway Protection Zones (RPZ) are an FAA design standard aimed at
protecting people and property on the ground from an aircraft accident
occurring prior to, or beyond the end of a runway. FAA standards for what
is considered a compatible use have changed over time. FAA Advisory
Circular 150/5300-13A (change 1) specifies what land use are permissible
within the RPZ without further evaluation. Those uses are:
• Farming that meets airport design standards.
• Irrigation channels that meet the requirements of AC 150/5200-33
and FAA/USDA manual, Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports.
• Airport service roads, as long as they are not public roads and are
directly controlled by the Airport operator.
• Underground facilities, as long as they meet other design criteria,
such as RSA requirements, as applicable.
• Unstaffed NAVAIDs and facilities, such as equipment for airport
facilities that are considered fixed-by-function in regard to the RPZ.
Land uses other than those specified above require additional compatibility
evaluation by the FAA. The Airport currently has multiple land uses located
within the RPZs for Runway 13 and 31 that the FAA would likely consider
incompatible such as residential uses and public roads. The FAA requires
closer analysis of incompatible land uses when a “triggering event” occurs.
Triggering events that would warrant closer analysis are:
• An airfield project (e.g., runway extension, runway shift)
• A change in the critical design aircraft that increases the RPZ
dimensions
• A new or revised instrument approach procedure that increases the
RPZ dimensions
• A local development proposal in the RPZ (either new or
reconfigured).
Additional Improvements Identified
The 1999 and 2012 Airport Master Plans identified the following
improvement projects in order to bring the Airport into compliance with
FAA standards in its current configuration.
• Increase separation between runway and parallel taxiways from 130
feet to 150 feet
• Widen taxiways from 20 feet to 25 feet
• Acquire property needed for 250 foot wide Runway Object Free Area
• Installation of a complete perimeter fence system
• Runway lighting system upgrades
• Replacement of the existing airport beacon
• Installation of Precision Approach Path Indicators, a lighted
segmented circle and windsock, and reflectors along the edge of the
taxiway and apron
21
April 2016
• Airport Business and Lease Structures
The 2012 Master Plan notes that Kalispell City Airport did not have a
pavement survey completed as part of the 2012 “State Survey of General
Aviation Airports” due to the absence of FAA funded pavements at S27. The
Master Plan notes that there is some cracking, weathering, and oxidation
occurring at the Airport during the inventory in 2012. The Master Plan
capital improvement plan recommended runway reconstruction occur in
the 2016-2018 grant years, with taxiway reconstruction to follow in 2019.
Due to the absence of pavement condition data, this analysis relies on the
Master Plan as the most recent assessment of pavement condition and
schedules improvement projects according to the City of Kalispell’s capital
improvement plan.
According to a 2012 Rates and Charges Survey conducted by the Montana
Aeronautics Division, the ground lease rates at Kalispell City Airport are
some of the most expensive in Montana and T-hangar lease rates are on
the higher side of average. As of March 2015, there are 16 leaseholders on
the Airport. The terms of the leases vary from 1 year lease for a T-hangar to
a 99 year lease for the Hilton Garden Inn. Lease rates vary depending on
the type of lease:
• Rates for private ground leases are $0.16 per square foot of hangar
space per year.
• T-hangar units are owned by two private entities and are rented
at $200- $250 per year. There are 20 T-hangar units on the airport
parking apron (Gross), and 10 additional T-hangar units on the
northwest side of the Airport (Billmayer). The Airport collects 50
percent of T-hangar rent from the private entities, and is guaranteed
a minimum payment of $500 a month per T-hangar building (not per
T-hangar unit) regardless of occupancy.
• The Airport charges a $0.06 per gallon fuel flowage fee.
For comparison, the following rates and charges are included for other
Montana GA airports. These rates are as reported in the 2012 Rates and
Charges Survey conducted by the Montana Aeronautics Division:
• Big Timber - $0.15 per square foot for commercial, $0.10 per square
foot for private ground lease
• Chester - $0.12 per square foot per year for ground lease, $250 per
year for hangar
• Eureka - $0.05 per square foot per year for ground lease
• Fairview - $0.06 per square foot per year for private ground lease
• Fort Benton - $75 - $140 per month for hangars
• Glasgow - $0.12 x 1.2 square foot for commercial, $0.10 x 1.2 square
foot for private ground lease $70-$100 per month for T-Hangars
• Lewistown - $0.09 per square foot for ground lease, $55 - $90 per
month for hangars
• Livingston - $0.16 per square foot for private hangar ground lease,
$103 per month for T-Hangar
• Malta - $0.10 per square foot for private ground lease, $0.20 per
square foot for commercial, $100 per month for T-Hangars.
• Plentywood - $0.08 per square foot for private ground lease, $0.10
per square foot for commercial ground lease
• Stevensville - $0.06 per square foot of ground lease, $150-$210 per
month for hangars.
2013 Airport Improvement Voter Referendum
In 2013, a plan was in place to bring the Airport into compliance with FAA
design standards. The FAA had allocated funding for the majority of the
projects and the Kalispell City Council voted to move forward. However,
opponents of the Airport improvement projects took the issue to the voters
in the form of a voter referendum to overturn the City Council’s decision.
The voter referendum passed, ending efforts to move forward with the
Airport improvement projects and rejecting FAA funding.
The passage of this voter referendum brought into question the long-term
viability of the Airport. These circumstances have left the Airport in a state of
uncertainty. Ambiguity about the future has discouraged private investment
at the Airport. Private investment and revenue generating projects are
needed in order for the Airport to be a viable, contributing aviation facility.
22
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
FAA Funding Mechanisms and Obligations
Airport owners always have the option to maintain and fund projects
through local means, but most of the 3,345 public-use-airports contained
in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) accept some
amount of financial assistance from the FAA. The FAA has several different
mechanisms for funding airport improvement projects depending on
the type of project and the type of airport. For GA airports like Kalispell
City Airport, a majority of projects are funded through the Airport
Improvement Program (AIP). The AIP fund assists with capital projects/
expenses at eligible airports. In order to be eligible for AIP funds, an airport
must first be included in the NPIAS. The AIP is funded separately from the
FAA operating budget. The funds are generated from a variety of aviation
related fees such as aviation fuel taxes, commercial airline ticket fees, and
cargo shipment fees. Monies in the AIP are not funded through general
U.S. treasury funds. This is an important distinction that the FAA makes in
an effort to emphasizes that AIP funds originate, and remain in, the aviation
system.
As a condition for receiving AIP grants, the FAA has a series of grant
assurances or obligations that the Airport sponsor (owner) must abide by
for twenty years from receipt of funds. It is important to note that these
grant assurances do not currently apply to the Kalispell City Airport because
it has not accepted federal funds. However, the FAA grant assurances
would apply in Alternative 3, or any variation of the project which includes
receipt of federal funds. Key grant assurances that pertain to the Airport
are summarized below. The full list of airport sponsor assurances can be
found on the FAA website at the following link:
http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant_assurances/
Good Title.
It, a public agency or the Federal government, holds good title,
satisfactory to the Secretary, to the landing area of the Airport or site
thereof, or will give assurance satisfactory to the Secretary that good
title will be acquired.
Consideration of Local Interest.
It has given fair consideration to the interest of communities in or
near where the project may be located.
Consultation with Users.
In making a decision to undertake any airport development project
under Title 49, United States Code, it has undertaken reasonable
consultations with affected parties using the Airport at which project
is proposed.
Public Hearings.
In projects involving the location of an airport, an airport runway,
or a major runway extension, it has afforded the opportunity for
public hearings for the purpose of considering the economic, social,
and environmental effects of the Airport or runway location and its
consistency with goals and objectives of such planning as has been
carried out by the community and it shall, when requested by the
Secretary, submit a copy of the transcript of such hearings to the
Secretary. Further, for such projects, it has on its management board
either voting representation from the communities where the project
is located or has advised the communities that they have the right to
petition the Secretary concerning a proposed project.
Operation and Maintenance.
The airport and all facilities which are necessary to serve the
aeronautical users of the Airport, other than facilities owned or
controlled by the United States, shall be operated at all times in a
safe and serviceable condition and in accordance with the minimum
standards as may be required or prescribed by applicable Federal,
state and local agencies for maintenance and operation. It will not
cause or permit any activity or action thereon which would interfere
with its use for airport purposes. It will suitably operate and maintain
the Airport and all facilities thereon or connected therewith, with due
regard to climatic and flood conditions.
23
April 2016
Any proposal to temporarily close the Airport for non-aeronautical
purposes must first be approved by the Secretary (of transportation).
Hazard Removal and Mitigation.
It will take appropriate action to assure that such terminal airspace as
is required to protect instrument and visual operations to the Airport
(including established minimum flight altitudes) will be adequately
cleared and protected by removing, lowering, relocating, marking,
or lighting or otherwise mitigating existing airport hazards and by
preventing the establishment or creation of future airport hazards.
Compatible Land Use.
It will take appropriate action, to the extent reasonable, including
the adoption of zoning laws, to restrict the use of land adjacent to
or in the immediate vicinity of the Airport to activities and purposes
compatible with normal airport operations, including landing and
takeoff of aircraft. In addition, if the project is for noise compatibility
program implementation, it will not cause or permit any change in
land use, within its jurisdiction, that will reduce its compatibility, with
respect to the Airport, of the noise compatibility program measures
upon which Federal funds have been expended.
Exclusive Rights.
It will permit no exclusive right for the use of the Airport by any person
providing, or intending to provide, aeronautical services to the public..
Fee and Rental Structure.
It will maintain a fee and rental structure for the facilities and services
at the Airport which will make the Airport as self-sustaining as
possible under the circumstances existing at the particular airport,
taking into account such factors as the volume of traffic and economy
of collection.
Airport Revenues.
All revenues generated by the Airport and any local taxes on aviation
fuel established after December 30, 1987, will be expended by it for
the capital or operating costs of the Airport; the local airport system;
or other local facilities which are owned or operated by the owner
or operator of the Airport and which are directly and substantially
related to the actual air transportation of passengers or property; or
for noise mitigation purposes on or off the Airport.
Hangar Construction.
If the Airport owner or operator and a person who owns an aircraft
agree that a hangar is to be constructed at the Airport for the aircraft
at the aircraft owner’s expense, the Airport owner or operator will
grant to the aircraft owner for the hangar a long term lease that is
subject to such terms and conditions on the hangar as the Airport
owner or operator may impose.
These grant assurances in effect create a more ridged management
structure and less flexibility for the City. They also protect the aviation
users’ interest and any federal financial contribution. Contrary to some
public perception, the City would not “lose control” of the Airport.
The City must consider these grant assurances, and the twenty year
encumbrances when weighing options for the future of the Airport.
This first section of the report presented the relevant existing
conditions surrounding the Airport in an effort of preparing the reader
with an understanding of the Airport’s circumstances. The following
section of this report outlines the aviation and financial implications
of the alternatives which arose from the public outreach sessions.
24
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
AIRPORT ALTERNATIVES
Introduction
Five high level concepts for the future of the Airport were considered and
further developed through February and March 2015 stakeholder and
public outreach meetings.
1. Keep the Airport as it is using City funding
2. Close the Airport
3. Request FAA funding for Airport in its current alignment
4. Incorporation into an Airport Authority
5. Privatize the Airport
This section provides an analysis of Alternatives 1 and2 from a financial
impact perspective. Cost assumptions and sources are included as endnotes.
Where appropriate, alternatives use TIF funding to pay for development,
but not for operations and maintenance expenses. TIF funding availability
assumes $1.325 million available in 2016 and $415,000 of additional
funding available per year until the TIF sunsets in 2020. Unused TIF funds
are carried forward to subsequent years; however, when the TIF sunsets,
unused funds must be returned to taxing authorities. Recommendations
are provided for alternative implementation. A summary of the alternatives
and a discounted cash flow analysis are included at the end of this section.
Examples of GA airports in similar scenarios are included below to illustrate
the inherent difficulties of long term self-sufficient GA airport operations
• Hot Springs County – Thermopolis Municipal Airport - Wyoming
(THP): THP is a publicly owned GA airport. THP is operated and
maintained through a contract between the County and the local
Fixed Base Operator (FBO). The County pays the FBO annually and
the FBO is responsible for operations and daily maintenance. Airport
revenues (fuel sales, hangar leases) are retained by the FBO; therefor,
the County operates THP at an annual loss. As of 2015, the County
is planning for THP to be incorporated into the FAA NPIAS in order
to be eligible for FAA AIP funds. The long term plan for THP includes
using AIP funds for Airport relocation.
• Catalina Airport - California (AVX): AVX is a privately owned
public-use GA airport which does not receive AIP funding. The
runway is in severe disrepair and repair costs exceed available funds.
The owner is in the process of finding an eligible sponsor for the AVX
with the objective of qualifying for and receiving FAA funds.
• W. K. Kellog Airport - Michigan (BTL): BTL is a publicly owned GA
airport which uses a variety of funding sources. BTL uses AIP funds
for capital projects, and funds from the local Tax Increment Finance
(TIF) District to aid with the local match requirements. Although BTL
is not entirely self-sufficient and relies on AIP funds, the combination
of TIF funds and general funds support operational costs.
• Other private airports: Throughout the country there are many small
GA airports that are privately owned and funded by their owners.
Ownership can be a single entity or a consortium type partnership
with multiple owners. In most all of these scenarios the owners are
responsible for all funding requirements.
In the United States, the vast majority of GA airports are not entirely
self-sufficient. Most receive operating and capital funds from a variety
of sources including city, county, state and federal sources. The Kalispell
City Airport requires significant capital investment from outside sources
to pay for much needed improvements. Cash flow generated by airport
operations is not sufficient to pay for needed capital improvements.
Airport Financial History: As shown in Figure 15, the Airport operated at an
average net loss of $99,499 per year from 2010 to 2014. If depreciation is
not included, the Airport has had positive cash flow in 2010 and 2013 and
operated at an average net loss of $124 from 2010 to 2014. Positive cash
flows were caused by irregular events (contract legal services expense being
lower in 2010 than in previous years and a one-time contribution from a local
government fund of $92,625 in 2013), not by normal revenues exceeding
expenses. It is recommended that the City not include depreciation in financial
analysis because depreciation represents the decline in value of an asset that
has already been paid for, and not a cash expense paid by the Airport. This will
present a more accurate picture of operating expenses and revenues.
25
April 2016
In order to assess airport development alternatives, a pro-forma financial
statement has been prepared for a baseline scenario. In this scenario,
the Airport continues to operate as it does today. Investment is limited
to needed maintenance and repair. Financial projections for the baseline
scenario are presented in Figure 16, and the airport capital improvement
plan is presented in Figure 17.
Construction expenses in Figure 16 are ineligible for TIF funding because
these expenses are considered maintenance of existing facilities, not
development of new facilities.
Figure 16 represents airport cash flows and expenses should the Airport
continue operating “as-is.” Capital improvement costs beyond what can be
covered by airport revenues are paid for by the City of Kalispell. Operating
expenses and revenues are projected to grow over time based on trends
observed over the past five years.
Figure 15: Airport Financial History
Figure 16: Baseline Financial Projections
Revenue growth is limited by the existing number of revenue-producing
properties on the Airport, and is expected to grow through lease rate
increases (e.g. increasing lease rates to reflect the true value on the
market). Expenses are expected to grow at nine percent per year, driven
by contracted labor and materials that support the capital improvement
program.
Airport Cash Flow 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Average
Airport Revenue 86,622 90,566 88,940 169,752 79,303 103,037
Airport Expenses 176,702 214,636 217,616 225,974 177,751 202,536
Minus Deprecia�on 100,832 100,832 100,832 97,918 96,461 99,375
Net Profit (Loss) (90,080) (124,070) (128,676) (56,222) (98,448) (99,499)
Net Profit (Loss) w/o Deprecia�on 10,752 (23,238) (27,844) 41,696 (1,987) (124)
Airport Cash Flow 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Revenue (+) 93,200 95,400 96,700 98,600 99,900 101,500
Opera�ng Expenses (-) 179,195 185,300 188,300 194,200 202,400 214,300
Construc�on Expenses (-) 0 0 386,794 311,242 402,286 56,000
Less Deprecia�on (+) 95,100 94,000 92,900 91,900 90,800 89,700
Net Profit (Loss) w/o Deprecia�on 9,105 4,100 (385,494) (314,942) (413,986) (79,100)
Airport Cash Flow 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Average
Airport Revenue 86,622 90,566 88,940 169,752 79,303 103,037
Airport Expenses 176,702 214,636 217,616 225,974 177,751 202,536
Minus Deprecia�on 100,832 100,832 100,832 97,918 96,461 99,375
Net Profit (Loss) (90,080) (124,070) (128,676) (56,222) (98,448) (99,499)
Net Profit (Loss) w/o Deprecia�on 10,752 (23,238) (27,844) 41,696 (1,987) (124)
Airport Cash Flow 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Revenue (+) 93,200 95,400 96,700 98,600 99,900 101,500
Opera�ng Expenses (-) 179,195 185,300 188,300 194,200 202,400 214,300
Construc�on Expenses (-) 0 0 386,794 311,242 402,286 56,000
Less Deprecia�on (+) 95,100 94,000 92,900 91,900 90,800 89,700
Net Profit (Loss) w/o Deprecia�on 9,105 4,100 (385,494) (314,942) (413,986) (79,100)
Figure 17: Existing Airport Capital Improvement Plan
Figure 16 re p re se n ts a irp o rt c a sh fl o w s a n d e x p e n se s sh o u ld th e A irp o rt c o n tin u e o p e ra tin g “a s-is.”
C a p ita l im p ro v e m e n t c o sts b e y o n d w h a t c a n b e c o v e re d b y a irp o rt re v e n u e s a re p a id fo r b y th e C ity o f
Kalispell. Operating expenses and revenues are projected to grow over tim e based on trends observed
o v e r th e p a st fi v e y e a rs.
R e v e n u e g ro w th is lim ite d b y th e e x istin g n u m b e r o f re v e n u e -p ro d u c in g p ro p e rtie s o n th e A irp o rt,
a n d is e x p e c te d to g ro w th ro u g h le a se ra te in c re a se s (e .g . in c re a sin g le a se ra te s to re fl e c t th e tru e
v a lu e o n th e m a rk e t). E x p e n se s a re e x p e c te d to g ro w a t n in e p e rc e n t p e r y e a r, d riv e n b y c o n tra c te d
lab o r an d m aterials th at su p p o rt th e cap ital im p ro vem en t p ro g ram .
[F ig u re 1 7 : E x istin g A irp o rt C a p ita l Im p ro v e m e n t P la n ]
Capital Improvement Projects 2016 2017 2018 2018 2020
Main Runway Overlay 372,000
Road and Parking Lot Crack Seal 14,794
West Taxiway Overlay 255,516
North Fuel Island Overlay 14,280
Main Hangar Taxiway Overlay 41,446
East Taxiway Overlay 362,167
Ryan Lane Overlay 40,119
Airport Road Overlay 56,000
Total 0 386,794 311,242 402,286 56,000
S o u rc e : C ity o f K a lisp e ll
Tax Increm ent Finance Options: In Ju ly 1 9 9 6 th e C ity e sta b lish e d a T IF D istric t fo r th e S o u th
K a lisp e ll/A irp o rt D istric t w ith a su n se t d a te o f Ju ly 1 , 2 0 2 0 . T h e T IF D istric t h a s a n a n n u a l b o n d
paym ent of approxim ately $500,000 and generates approxim ately $631,000 in revenue per year. This
T IF D istric t is o n e o f tw o ta x in g ju risd ic tio n s a v a ila b le fo r th e C ity to u se a s a n A irp o rt fu n d in g so u rc e
(th e o th e r b e in g tra d itio n a l p ro p e rty ta x re v e n u e s). T h e re w ill b e $ 1 ,3 2 5 ,0 0 0 in T IF fu n d s in 2 0 1 6 , a n d
a n a d d itio n a l $ 4 1 5 ,0 0 0 in T IF fu n d s p e r y e a r u n til 2 0 2 0 . T IF fu n d s c a n b e u se d fo r n e w c o n stru c tio n
a n d a c tio n s th a t su p p o rt d e v e lo p m e n t (e .g . b u y in g o u t le a se s), b u t n o t to c o v e r m a in te n a n c e o r fo r
o p e ra tin g e x p e n se s. T IF fu n d s m u st b e u se d p rio r to th e T IF su n se t d a te in 2 0 2 0 .
14
26
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Tax Increment Finance Options: In July 1996 the City established a TIF
District for the South Kalispell/Airport District with a sunset date of July
1, 2020. The TIF District has an annual bond payment of approximately
$500,000 and generates approximately $631,000 in revenue per year. This
TIF District is one of two taxing jurisdictions available for the City to use as an
Airport funding source (the other being traditional property tax revenues).
There will be $1,325,000 in TIF funds in 2016, and an additional $415,000 in
TIF funds per year until 2020. TIF funds can be used for new construction
and actions that support development (e.g. buying out leases), but not to
cover maintenance or for operating expenses. TIF funds must be used prior
to the TIF sunset date in 2020.
Alternative 1 – Keep Airport As-Is
Approximately three-quarters of the stakeholders, airport users and the public
responded with the desire to keep or expand the Airport. In Alternative 1,
necessary capital improvements are made, and available property is leased to
private developers with the intent of generating new revenue in support of
the long term viability of the Airport.
Alternative 1 requires similar capital investment as the baseline scenario.
Improvement projects are considered maintenance of existing facilities
and are therefore ineligible for TIF funds to pay for improvements. Without
FAA involvement, financial responsibility for capital projects, maintenance
activities, and operating costs that are not covered by airport revenues will fall
on the City. The City will rely on increased airport revenues to cover airport
costs. Several avenues exist for the City to implement capital projects that will
increase revenues.
• Invest now in much needed maintenance projects. This will send
a signal to the aviation community and prospective users, tenants
and business that the City is serious about the long term viable
operation of the Airport. The east and west taxiways are in need of
maintenance, which should be a high priority item for the City to
address.
• Attract a developer for a new 18-unit T-hangar complex. Enter into
a lease agreement similar to the existing T-hangar lessees which
guarantees $500 a month per T-hangar building, or ½ of rents owed
to the developer. After a certain level of occupancy it is expected
that ½ of rents owed will exceed $500 a month, which explains the
increase in revenue from 2018 to 2019 and 2020. The City will not
develop hangars because of the cost, slow payback period, and
low rate of return (and potential loss), but instead continue to lease
property to private developers.
• Identify areas on airport/city property for future development.
In order for additional users to relocate to the Airport, a land use
development plan needs to be in place. Areas for non-aviation uses
(e.g., industrial park, self-storage facility) should be located in areas
that are already separated from the airfield. Aviation related uses
(additional hangars, FBOs, and other aviation service providers)
should be located in areas with access to the airfield. Much of the
airfield area has been developed already; however, several areas of
infill exist. If the City chooses Alternative 1, a land use development
plan should be prepared for the development of surplus property
As revenue increases, the City should consider undertaking projects to
bring the airfield into compliance with FAA standards, even if the Airport is
not obligated to do so by FAA grant assurances. Since this alternative would
not utilize FAA funds, no requirement would exist to comply with FAA grant
assurances. As a liability precaution, the City should also consider publishing a
continuous Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) specifying the areas which do not meet
FAA standards.
Capital expenditure and associated revenue projections are shown in Figure
18. Over time, new hangars come online and help provide additional income
for the Airport. Figure 18 includes capital expenses programmed by the City
of Kalispell, and additional capital expenses required to increase revenue,
such as maintaining airfield facilities in a condition that will attract private
investment. Figure 19 shows the resulting revenues and expenses associated
with Alternative 1. Detailed revenue and expense projections are included in
Appendix A.
27
April 2016
Revenue assumptions are that 15 new hangar site leases (five 100’x100’ and
ten 60’x60’ hangars) will come online between 2016 and 2020. The lease rates
assume $0.16 per square foot per year for 2016, then growing at 2.2% per year
in line with the U.S. rate of inflation forecast. The City will need to include such
escalation in new leases, and adjust existing leases when possible to reflect
true market value for the property. Absorption rate of the new development
areas will depend on market demand and the completion of other airport
improvement projects that will help grow developer confidence. Alternative 1
projections assume a total of two units will be built by 2016; a total of five will
be built by 2017; a total of nine will be built by 2018; a total of 12 will be built by
2019; and all 15 spaces will be built by 2020.
Figure 18: Alternative 1 Capital Costs and Resulting Revenue
Revenues in Figure 18 represent a new revenue only. A comprehensive revenue and expense
pro forma is included in Appendix A.
Figure 19: Alternative 1 Revenue and Expense Summary
The 18 unit T-hanger building is expected to be in place by 2019 and revenue
projections assume the minimum of $500 a month ($6,000 a year) is paid to
the City in the first year while the developer markets the units to tenants. This
fee structure is identical to existing T-hangar building leases. If the developer is
successful in leasing more than five spaces, then the City will receive ½ of the
rent due per month in line with the other T-hangar lease agreements, which
will provide up to $23,760 a year in revenue at full hangar occupancy. Hangar
development in Alternative 1 represents a “maximum development” scenario,
where all available airport property is developed to produce revenue.
Additional Avenues for Increasing Airport Revenue:
• “True-up” Existing Ground Lease Rates: The City should consider
bringing existing ground leases up to true market rates. This will
require additional analysis to determine the true market rate for the
ground leases. Depending on the ground lease structure, this may not
be possible for several of the sites for many years. As ground leases
expire or come up for renewal, the City should include an escalation
clause which allows lease rates to grow at the expected rate of
inflation (at a minimum).
• To remain competitive with off-airport sites, the City could provide
“shovel ready” sites. “Shovel ready” generally means any environmental
work and field investigations have been completed and the project
is ready for design work. Sewer, water and power infrastructure are
generally available throughout the Airport property. These utilities
could be extended to specific project sites in advance in an effort
to encourage development. While this approach should incentivize
development, it comes at a cost to the City. These costs are not
included in the financial projections.
• Consider establishing a new TIF District for the Airport beyond 2020.
Although this might be a less desirable action politically, it would
provide the City with a sustained source of revenue for the Airport.
Establishing a TIF District would be a significant undertaking, requiring
time and expense from the City.
Alternative 1
Revenues 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
T-Hangar Ground Lease 0 0 6,000 13,200 23,760 42,960
Hangar Site Leases 1,200 4,120 8,760 11,840 15,000 40,920
Ground Leases 0 30,000 31,000 32,000 33,000 126,000
Expenses 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total TIF
Main Runway Overlay 0 372,000 0 0 0 372,000 No
Road and Parking Lot Crack Seal 0 14,794 0 0 0 14,794 No
North Fuel Island Overlay 0 0 14,280 0 0 14,280 No
Main Hangar Taxiway Overlay 0 0 41,446 0 0 41,446 No
West Taxiway Overlay 0 0 255,516 0 0 255,516 No
Ryan Lane Overlay 0 0 0 40,119 0 40,119 No
East Taxiway Overlay 0 0 0 362,167 0 362,167 No
Airport Road Overlay 0 0 0 0 56,000 56,000 No
Revenues in Figure 18 represent new revenue only. A com prehensive revenue and expense pro form a is
included in Appendix A.
[Figure 19: Alternative 1 Revenue and Expense Sum m ary]
Alternative 1 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Operating Revenues (+)90,800 125,520 139,960 153,340 170,860
Operating Expenses (Except Depreciation) (-)133,800 143,600 154,200 167,500 185,300
Capital Expenses (-)0 386,794 311,242 402,286 56,000
Surplus (Shortfall)(43,000) (404,874) (325,482) (416,446) (70,440)
R e v e n u e a ssu m p tio n s a re th a t 1 5 n e w h a n g a r site le a se s (fi v e 1 0 0 ’x 1 0 0 ’ a n d te n 6 0 ’x 6 0 ’ h a n g a rs) w ill
c o m e o n lin e b e tw e e n 2 0 1 6 a n d 2 0 2 0 . T h e le a se ra te s a ssu m e $ 0 .1 6 p e r sq u a re fo o t p e r y e a r fo r 2 0 1 6 ,
th e n g ro w in g a t 2 .2 % p e r y e a r in lin e w ith th e U .S . ra te o f in fl a tio n fo re c a st. T h e C ity w ill n e e d to
in c lu d e su c h e sc a la tio n in n e w le a se s, a n d a d ju st e x istin g le a se s w h e n p o ssib le to re fl e c t tru e m a rk e t
v a lu e fo r th e p ro p e rty . A b so rp tio n ra te o f th e n e w d e v e lo p m e n t a re a s w ill d e p e n d o n m a rk e t d e m a n d
a n d th e c o m p le tio n o f o th e r a irp o rt im p ro v e m e n t p ro je c ts th a t w ill h e lp g ro w d e v e lo p e r c o n fi d e n c e .
A lte rn a tiv e 1 p ro je c tio n s a ssu m e a to ta l o f tw o u n its w ill b e b u ilt b y 2 0 1 6 ; a to ta l o f fi v e w ill b e b u ilt b y
2 0 1 7 ; a to ta l o f n in e w ill b e b u ilt b y 2 0 1 8 ; a to ta l o f 1 2 w ill b e b u ilt b y 2 0 1 9 ; a n d a ll 1 5 sp a c e s w ill b e
built by 2020.
T h e 1 8 u n it T -h a n g e r b u ild in g is e x p e c te d to b e in p la c e b y 2 0 1 9 a n d re v e n u e p ro je c tio n s a ssu m e th e
m in im u m o f $ 5 0 0 a m o n th ($ 6 ,0 0 0 a y e a r) is p a id to th e C ity in th e fi rst y e a r w h ile th e d e v e lo p e r
m arkets th e u n its to ten an ts. Th is fee stru ctu re is id en tical to existin g T-h an g ar b u ild in g leases. If th e
d e v e lo p e r is su c c e ssfu l in le a sin g m o re th a n fi v e sp a c e s, th e n th e C ity w ill re c e iv e ½ o f th e re n t d u e p e r
m o n th in lin e w ith th e o th e r T -h a n g a r le a se a g re e m e n ts, w h ic h w ill p ro v id e u p to $ 2 3 ,7 6 0 a y e a r in
re v e n u e a t fu ll h a n g a r o c c u p a n c y . H a n g a r d e v e lo p m e n t in A lte rn a tiv e 1 re p re se n ts a “m a x im u m
developm ent” scenario, w here all available airport property is developed to produce revenue.
Additional Avenues for Increasing Airport Revenue:
16
Alterna�ve 1
Revenues 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
T-Hangar Ground Lease 0 0 6,000 13,200 23,760 42,960
Hangar Site Leases 1,200 4,120 8,760 11,840 15,000 40,920
Ground Leases 0 30,000 31,000 32,000 33,000 126,000
Expenses 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total TIF
Main Runway Overlay 0 372,000 0 0 0 372,000 No
Road and Parking Lot Crack Seal 0 14,794 0 0 0 14,794 No
North Fuel Island Overlay 0 0 14,280 0 0 14,280 No
Main Hangar Taxiway Overlay 0 0 41,446 0 0 41,446 No
West Taxiway Overlay 0 0 255,516 0 0 255,516 No
Ryan Lane Overlay 0 0 0 40,119 0 40,119 No
East Taxiway Overlay 0 0 0 362,167 0 362,167 No
Airport Road Overlay 0 0 0 0 56,000 56,000 No
Alterna�ve 1 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Opera�ng Revenues (+) 90,800 125,520 139,960 153,340 170,860
Opera�ng Expenses (-) 133,800 143,600 154,200 167,500 185,300
Capital Expenses (-) 0 386,794 311,242 402,286 56,000
Surplus (Shor�all) (43,000) (404,874) (325,482) (416,446) (70,440)
28
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Available options but not recommended:
• Establish landing fees and/or overnight tie-down fees. This could
discourage use at the Airport and drive aviation activity to other
airports. The following airports in Montana have established such
fees:
-Glasgow - $25/night single-engine, $50/night multi-engine
-Stevensville - $3/night single-engine, $5/night multi-engine
-No airports in Montana charge landing fees for non-commercial
GA aircraft.
An example of a busy GA airport which has additional fee structures is
Montgomery Field, San Diego, California:
-Overnight transient parking: $5/night for aircraft with a Maximum
Takeoff Weight (MTOW) of 10,000 lbs or less, or $1 per 1,000 lbs
for aircraft over 10,000 lbs MTOW. For example, a Cessna 172 = $5/
night. A King Air 200 = $13/night.
-Landing Fees apply to all aircraft operating under a Part 135
certificate, regardless of how an individual flight is operated. $10
for aircraft 10,000 lbs MTOW or less, or $1 per 1,000 lbs for aircraft
over 10,000 lbs MTOW. For example, a Cessna 421 = $10/landing.
A Citation Excel = $20/landing.
Fiscal Impacts: There would be immediate costs to the City for overdue
maintenance projects. Ru nways and taxiways are the main areas reported
by users as needing immediate attention. The City should adhere to their
Capital Improvement Plan for the near-term high priority projects to enhance
tenant and user confidence, and facilitate capital planning. A detailed pro
forma, capital costs, and revenues and expenses are included in Appendix A.
There would be immediate costs to the City for overdue maintenance
projects. Runways and taxiways are the main areas reported by users as
needing immediate attention. The City should adhere to their Capital
Improvement Plan for the near-term high priority projects to enhance tenant
and user confidence, and facilitate capital planning. A detailed pro forma,
capital costs, and revenues and expenses are included in Appendix A.
When comparing cash flows from different time periods, it is critical to
account for the time-value of money. Due to changes in inflation and
purchasing power, the value of $1 in 2015 is more than it is in 2016, and
much more than it is in 2020. One way to look at it is that a good or service
that costs $1 today will cost $1.40 in 2020 dollars. The good or service does
not change, only the amount of money required to pay for it. Revenues and
expenses in the pro-forma statements are presented in the dollar values
for the years that they occur (e.g. 2017 revenues are in 2017 dollars, and
2020 revenues are in 2020 dollars), but when the costs and benefits of the
alternatives are compared to each other, all dollars are adjusted to present
value, which is 2015 dollars.
The present value adjustment uses the “discount rate” of 7% that the White
House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recommends for evaluating
long term financial performance of government-funded projects, which are
not subject to the same market risks and tax implications and private sector
investments. This discount rate accounts for inflation, changes in purchasing
power, and risk. With all dollar values having the same purchasing power,
expenditures and revenues occurring in different years or across many years
can be compared.
A discounted cash flow analysis (DCFA) for Alternative 1 provides insight
on net present value (NPV) of five year costs and revenues, and expected
long-term financial gain. The DCFA uses a 7% discount rate to bring future
monies into 2015 dollars, and assumes that revenues will grow in pace with
inflation at 2% annually. The DCFA for Alternative 1 is presented in Appendix
A.
Alternative 1 requires capital investment of $900,000 over the next five years,
which includes the capital projects in Figure 19, adjusted to present value at
a 7% discount rate. The Airport valued at negative $1.3 million after these
improvements are made (negative $1 million in cash flow over the five years,
and negative $300,000 in ongoing loss over the life of the Airport). This means
that the City will need to invest more money than the Airport is expected to
return. After improvements for Alternative 1 are complete, it is expected that
the Airport will provide economic benefit for the community by way of jobs
and local tax base, however, economic benefits are not reflected in airport
finances.
29
April 2016
The DCFA assumes that the
City of Kalispell will finance
the initial $900,000 investment
in pavement rehabilitation,
and that the T-hangars and
box hangars will be built by a
private developer. The City will
receive rent from the private
developer for these newly
developed hangars.
Spending $900,000 to receive
negative $1.3 million in value
may not look like a wise
investment; however, cities do
not operate like for-profit enterprises. Many essential city functions, such
as schools, emergency services, and parks and recreation, do not generate
profit. These services increase value of private enterprises that use them,
which comes back to the City in the form of tax and licensure revenue and
quality of life and emergency preparedness. Jobs and economic output are
generated through temporary construction jobs and long-term jobs on
airport, and off-airport that use aviation as part of their business or supply
the aviation sector.
When compared to the baseline scenario which has no investment or
improvement beyond safety-critical items and ongoing maintenance,
Alternative 1 has a DCFA valuation that is $61,969 greater over the long-term.
The numbers are similar because the baseline scenario still requires substantial
maintenance over the next five years just to keep the Airport operational. The
Airport operates at a loss in both scenarios, but covers more of its operating
expenses in Alternative 1 after five years due to additional lease revenue from
private hangar sector development. Due to the high level of assumptions
involved in the DCFA valuation, there is little difference between Alternative 1
and the baseline scenario. A comparison between Alternative 1 and the baseline
is presented in Figure 20.
Aviation Impacts: Alternative 1 is not the ideal scenario from an aeronautical
perspective because it does not comply with FAA design standards. The
Recommended Airport Plan in the 2012 Final Airport Master Plan was full
compliance with FAA standards. However, Alternative 1 is a reasonable
compromise given the history and political environment surrounding the
Airport. Alternative 1 does provide a way for the Airport to voluntarily meet
FAA standards as funds are available by increasing revenue opportunities
and encouraging private investment.
Community Impacts: Alternative 1 keeps the Airport as the City’s financial
responsibility. Although the community will continue to receive the economic
benefits from the presence of the Airport (e.g. jobs, spending within the
community, and taxes), the financial investment needed to maintain a safe
operating environment at the Airport is considerable. It is expected that the
City will need to support this investment with its general fund. Should the
City need to take money from other city departments, then the community
may have to wait longer for needed improvements in areas.
Findings for Alternative 1 - Keep Airport As-Is
Keeping the Airport open in an as-is configuration without seeking
external funding does not produce a profitable enterprise. Challenges to
producing sustained profit include limited property available for revenue
producing development due to the Airport being surrounded by roads,
other development, and aviation clear areas; limited ability to raise lease
rates due to competition from other airports nearby and existing leases; and
the costs associated with airfield maintenance. Across the country, some GA
airports have secured additional revenue by leasing available property to
non-aviation large-lot commercial development. Due to the site constraints
mentioned above, it is not expected that there is sufficient property at S27
to support aviation development and large lot commercial; therefore, the
Airport will be dependent on aviation-related rents to offset costs.
S p e n d in g $ 9 0 0 ,0 0 0 to re c e iv e n e g a tiv e $ 1 .3 m illio n in v a lu e m a y n o t lo o k lik e a w ise in v e stm e n t;
h o w e v e r, c itie s d o n o t o p e ra te lik e fo r-p ro fi t e n te rp rise s. M a n y e sse n tia l c ity fu n c tio n s, su c h a s sc h o o ls,
em ergency services, and parks and recreation, do not generate profit. These services increase value of
p riv a te e n te rp rise s th a t u se th e m , w h ic h c o m e s b a c k to th e C ity in th e fo rm o f ta x a n d lic e n su re
revenue and quality of life and em ergency preparedness. Jobs and econom ic output are generated
th ro u g h tem p o rary co n stru ctio n jo b s an d lo n g -term jo b s o n airp o rt, an d o ff -airp o rt th at u se aviatio n
a s p a rt o f th e ir b u sin e ss o r su p p ly th e a v ia tio n se c to r.
W h e n c o m p a re d to th e b a se lin e sc e n a rio w h ic h h a s n o in v e stm e n t o r im p ro v e m e n t b e y o n d sa fe ty -
c ritic a l ite m s a n d o n g o in g m a in te n a n c e , A lte rn a tiv e 1 h a s a D C FA v a lu a tio n th a t is $ 6 1 ,9 6 9 g re a te r
over the long-term . The num bers are sim ilar because the baseline scenario still requires substantial
m a in te n a n c e o v e r th e n e x t fi v e y e a rs ju st to k e e p th e A irp o rt o p e ra tio n a l. T h e A irp o rt o p e ra te s a t a
lo ss in b o th sc e n a rio s, b u t c o v e rs m o re o f its o p e ra tin g e x p e n se s in A lte rn a tiv e 1 a fte r fi v e y e a rs d u e to
additional lease revenue from private hangar sector developm ent. Due to the high level of
a ssu m p tio n s in v o lv e d in th e D C FA v a lu a tio n , th e re is little d iff e re n c e b e tw e e n A lte rn a tiv e 1 a n d th e
baseline scenario. A com parison betw een Alternative 1 and the baseline is presented in Figure 20.
[Figure 20: Alternative 1 Com parison to Baseline]
Net Present Value (2015 $, 7% Rate)DCFA
Alternative 5 Year Cash Flows Ongoing Income Valuation
Baseline (890,729) (471,240) (1,361,969)
1 (1,000,000) (300,000) (1,300,000)
Difference (109,271)171,240 61,969
A v ia tio n Im p a c ts: A lte rn a tiv e 1 is n o t th e id e a l sc e n a rio fro m a n a e ro n a u tic a l p e rsp e c tiv e b e c a u se it
d o e s n o t c o m p ly w ith FA A d e sig n sta n d a rd s. T h e R e c o m m e n d e d A irp o rt P la n in th e 2 0 1 2 F in a l A irp o rt
M a ste r P la n w a s fu ll c o m p lia n c e w ith FA A sta n d a rd s. H o w e v e r, A lte rn a tiv e 1 is a re a so n a b le
c o m p ro m ise g iv e n th e h isto ry a n d p o litic a l e n v iro n m e n t su rro u n d in g th e A irp o rt. A lte rn a tiv e 1 d o e s
p ro v id e a w a y fo r th e A irp o rt to v o lu n ta rily m e e t FA A sta n d a rd s a s fu n d s a re a v a ila b le b y in c re a sin g
revenue opportunities and encouraging private investm ent.
Community Impacts: A lte rn a tiv e 1 k e e p s th e A irp o rt a s th e C ity ’s fi n a n c ia l re sp o n sib ility . A lth o u g h th e
c o m m u n ity w ill c o n tin u e to re c e iv e th e e c o n o m ic b e n e fi ts fro m th e p re se n c e o f th e A irp o rt (e .g . jo b s,
spending within the com m unity, and taxes), the financial investm ent needed to m aintain a safe
o p e ra tin g e n v iro n m e n t a t th e A irp o rt is c o n sid e ra b le . It is e x p e c te d th a t th e C ity w ill n e e d to su p p o rt
th is in v e stm e n t w ith its g e n e ra l fu n d . S h o u ld th e C ity n e e d to ta k e m o n e y fro m o th e r c ity
d e p a rtm e n ts, th e n th e c o m m u n ity m a y h a v e to w a it lo n g e r fo r n e e d e d im p ro v e m e n ts in a re a s.
19
[Figure 20: Alternative 1 Comparison to Baseline]
Meeting FAA Design Standards
• Alternative 1 does not meet FAA design
standards.
• FAA design standards for either ARC I or
ARC II facilities require additional capital
projects as described in Alternative 3 and
Appendix A
• The cost to the City of meeting FAA funding
is up to ten times more than with FAA
funding.
• The NPV of capital costs to meet FAA Design
standards using City funds is $3.2 million
over five years
30
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Alternative 2 – Close the Airport
Closing the Airport is an option that is available to the City, but it has the
possibility of being a complicated and costly alternative. Closure would
be made in the form of a distinct and deliberate action from the City. If
no action is taken by the City and the Airport continues to deteriorate to
the point where it is operationally deficient, the City may at some point
become liable for failure to maintain the pavement.
The following are the financial and aviation impacts associated with an
airport closure:
Lease Buyout: The following
section regarding lease contents,
implications to the City and the
lease summary table in Appendix
A, is included as planning level
information only and does not
constitute a legal analysis of the
leases. As the lease languages
read, lease buyout would be
required at “a point when the
City discontinues aviation
operations on the Kalispell
Airport site.”
Figure 21 and Figure 22 show
a strong increase in revenue in
2019 and 2020 as a result of the
land sale and TIF funding offsetting capital expenses. It is expected that the
City will have sold off interest in the property by 2020, and will not receive
future revenue, meaning that revenue and expenses beyond 2020 will
equal $0. Should the City choose to lease and not sell the property, the cash
flow will be much lower in 2019 and 2020; however, the City will continue
to receive revenue from the property into the future. In this scenario, the
City will also continue to incur expenses associated with upkeep.
While the pro forma in Appendix A shows Alternative 1 with a loss of
$70,440 in 2020, this level of loss is largely dependent on private investment
generating additional lease revenue for the Airport. Without this investment,
or if it takes longer to materialize than planned, the loss will likely be greater.
From a capital investment perspective, Alternative 1 is less expensive from a
capital investment perspective than the Airport closure option (Alternative 2),
and more expensive than getting FAA involvement and having to meet FAA
standards (Alternative 3). Consideration must be given to how the expenses
will be paid, as capital projects in Alternative 2 and some capital projects
in Alternative 3 are eligible for TIF funding, whereas none of the capital
projects in Alternative 1 are eligible for funding. Although Alternative 3 is
less expensive purely in terms of capital costs, Alternative 3 will require a new
planning effort, negotiation with the FAA, and local politically wrangling. As
financial conditions improve with future aviation and non-aviation growth
at the Airport, continuing to invest in the airfield and meet FAA standards
where practical will support the viability of the Airport.
If the City chooses to move forward with Alternative 1, a publicity campaign
should immediately occur to make existing and prospective users, tenants,
and business aware of the City’s dedication and plan for continued
operation of the Airport. The ability of an airport to obtain financial
self-sufficiency depends on increasing user confidence in the Airport and
attracting demand and revenue generating uses.
Alternative 1 – Action Plan
1. Invest in the east and west taxiway maintenance projects.
2. Hire a full-time Airport Manager.
3. Consider attracting private development for new T- and box hangar
projects.
4. Prepare a land use development plan for vacant airport lands.
5. Engage in a publicity campaign to provide information on how the City
plans to continue funding and maintaining the Airport.
6. As funds are available, strive to meet FAA standards even if not required.
The City currently has both ground
leases and building leases on the
Kalispell City Airport.
• In a ground lease, the tenant
leases the ground for a fixed term
and may build a structure at
their own cost. If these leases are
terminated early the City may be
responsible for paying the tenant
the unamortized portion of the
building cost.
• In a building lease, the tenant
leases a building owned by the
City.
31
April 2016
Seven of the sixteen leases currently in effect at the Kalispell City Airport
have clauses stating that if the City discontinues aviation operations at
the Airport, the lease shall terminate and the City shall pay the fair market
value at the existing usage of the improvements constructed on the site.
At least one lease has clauses requiring appraisal of the fair value of the
remaining term of the lease and payment of that amount to the lessee.
Others require the unamortized portion of the cost of the hangar to be
paid to the tenant. In order for the City to close the Airport and buyout
the existing leases, official appraisals would be required (in some cases
two appraisals) to determine the appropriate dollar amount. The City will
need to pay for property appraisal and lease buy-out. This option carries
a risk of litigation depending on the results of the appraisal. Note: the
cost of ground lease buyouts will decrease overtime as the lease term nears
expiration and building near the ends of their useful lives; however, the buyout
costs associated with hangars at fair market value will likely increase due to
inflation and general value increases.
Potential Impacts at KGPI: Relocation of users to KGPI in the event of
Kalispell City Airport’s closure has been suggested at public meetings
by those in favor of closing the Airport. An important impact to consider
is the comingling of GA and air carrier aircraft. The mixing of small GA
aircraft with air carrier, and corporate jets is possible, but not necessarily
a desirable scenario. The FAA, airport operators and air traffic controllers
prefer to separate these two user groups when possible. Difference in sizes
and operating speeds of air carrier and small GA aircraft adds a level of
complexity to the Airport environment and the potential for airfield delays
as larger aircraft have to wait for smaller aircraft to clear the runways and
airspace. Currently, there is adequate capacity at KGPI to accommodate
additional general aviation activity.
The Flathead Municipal Airport Authority (FMAA) owns and operates
KGPI and two other GA airports where it can separate operations and
infrastructure requirements of the two different user classes of aircraft (small
GA and air carrier/business jet). A sudden influx of small GA aircraft into an
airport that is not prepared to accommodate their permanent relocation
could be problematic. Since hangars are not eligible for FAA AIP funds,
FMAA would be responsible for either paying directly for construction of
new hangars at KGPI or attracting investors to do so. Commercial service
airports like KGPI typically focus their efforts on commercial and business
aviation investment opportunities. Alternatively, the FMAA could choose
to do nothing about new hangar construction and plane owners would
need to go elsewhere for services outside of the City of Kalispell.
Fiscal Impacts: Costs associated with this alternative include immediate
costs of lease buyout and a loss of economic activity generated by Airport
businesses that choose not to relocate within the region. It should be
assumed that some of the reported jobs, payroll and total activity/output
would be lost with the Airport closure. This report does not attempt to
quantify that loss, nor does it quantify potential economic gain associated
with reuse of the Airport site.
A detailed five year pro-forma analysis, capital costs, and detailed revenues
and expenses of Alternative 2 are included in Appendix A.
A critical element that is missing from the Alternative 2 pro-forma is the
future revenue potential of the property. If the City chooses to re-purpose
the property for another civic use, there will be costs and revenue
implications. If the City sells the property and it is re-developed, there
will be taxes and jobs generated. Due to the unknowns about the future
of the property, the on-going revenue is listed as $0 to the City. In order
to accurately compare Alternative 2 to Alternative 1, it is recommended
that more research be done on what the property could be re-purposed
for. Within this report two general options are depicted from a land use
perspective but no detailed analysis has been contemplated.
The DCFA for Alternative 2 uses the same 7% discount rate as Alternatives 1
and 3. What is different between Alternatives 1 and Alternative 2 is that the
DCFA for Alternative 2 assumes no long-term income from the property
once it is sold. Depending on what the City does with the property, it may
become taxable. Tax revenue will depend on what types of uses are built
on the site. It is recommended that the City of Kalispell develop an area
plan for the site should Alternative 2 be pursued in order to calculate the
future tax revenue. The DCFA for Alternative 2 is presented in Appendix A.
32
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Figure 21: Alternative 2 Capital Costs and Resulting Revenues
[Figure 23: Alternative 2 Comparison to Baseline]
Figure 22: Alternative 2 Revenue and Expense Summary
The NPV of the cash flows for Alternative 2 is $300,000, a positive result
largely due to TIF funding and proceeds from the sale of the property
offsetting the expense of the lease buy-outs. If the City chooses not to sell
the property it is recommended that the DCFA be re-run to better assess
long-term property tax income from the site.
The present value of capital projects and lease buy-outs associated with
Alternative 2 is $3.1 million in 2015 dollars at a 7% discount rate. There is a
negative return on investment because the City does not generate enough
revenue from the sale of the land to cover the costs associated with selling
it (even with the use of TIF funds); however, this loss could be smaller, or
even a net gain should the City be able to produce tax revenue from the
site over the long-term. If the site is converted to another civic use, then
property tax income is not expected; however, there may be economic
benefits associated with new jobs.
As shown in Figure 21 and Figure 22, Alternative 2 has high up-front
costs; however, if these costs are spread over time, there should be
sufficient TIF funding to cover buy outs. The opportunity cost here is that
this improvement alternative uses all available TIF funds, and it is possible
that the City may want to use TIF funds to pay for improvements in the
South Kalispell area that are not related to the Airport. The City can use the
proceeds from the land sale to cover some expenses in 2019 and 2020 if it
desires to use the TIF funds for other purposes.
As shown in Figure 23, Alternative 2 is $1.7 million less expensive to the
City than continuing to operate the Airport as-is in the long-run. However,
Alternative 2 requires $2.2 million more in upfront capital investment ($3.1
million in Alternative 2 compared to $900,000 in the baseline scenario).
The reason behind this is that the City can use TIF funds to cover closure
expenses in Alternative 2, and cannot use TIF funds in the baseline
scenario. As stated previously, the City could see a more positive return
with Alternative 2 if there was a plan to redevelop the property into a
revenue producing land use, through lease or property tax. Using TIF
funds for airport closure means that these funds will not be used for other
improvement projects in the South Kalispell area.
Aviation Impacts: This alternative is the least desirable of the three
alternatives from an aviation perspective. New airports are exceedingly
difficult and costly to site. It is expected that displaced aircraft would
relocate to other area airports.
Community Impacts: Alternative 2 removes the Airport which takes away a
transportation asset; however, there are other facilities in the area that can
support the displaced airport users. Given that there is surplus capacity
(in terms of runway capacity and developable land for aviation uses) at
other airports, removal of the Kalispell City Airport does not cause overly
negative impact the area’s airport system.
Removal gives the City a chance to replace the Airport with a facility or
facilities that benefit the community in other ways, such as a school or a
Alterna�ve 2
Revenue 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Property Sale 0 0 0 887,500 887,500 1,775,000
TIF Funds 0 756,550 1,255,200 558,250 415,000 2,985,000
Expenses 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total TIF
Ground Lease Buy Out 0 279,800 223,800 447,600 167,800 1,119,000 Yes
Hangar Purchase 0 476,750 381,400 762,800 286,050 1,907,000 Yes
Red Eagle Buy Out 0 0 650,000 0 0 650,000 Yes
Phase I Environmental 0 0 0 22,000 0 22,000 Yes
Building Demo 0 0 0 0 196,000 196,000 Yes
Pavement Demo 0 0 0 5,000 0 5,000 Yes
Alterna�ve 2 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Opera�ng Revenues (+) 82,175 829,565 1,290,595 1,465,450 1,302,500
Opera�ng Expenses (-) 147,900 179,100 186,400 57,900 36,000
Capital Expenses (-) 0 756,550 1,255,200 1,242,400 649,850
Surplus (Shor�all) (65,725) (106,085) (151,005) 165,150 616,650
Alterna�ve 2
Revenue 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Property Sale 0 0 0 887,500 887,500 1,775,000
TIF Funds 0 756,550 1,255,200 558,250 415,000 2,985,000
Expenses 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total TIF
Ground Lease Buy Out 0 279,800 223,800 447,600 167,800 1,119,000 Yes
Hangar Purchase 0 476,750 381,400 762,800 286,050 1,907,000 Yes
Red Eagle Buy Out 0 0 650,000 0 0 650,000 Yes
Phase I Environmental 0 0 0 22,000 0 22,000 Yes
Building Demo 0 0 0 0 196,000 196,000 Yes
Pavement Demo 0 0 0 5,000 0 5,000 Yes
Alterna�ve 2 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Opera�ng Revenues (+) 82,175 829,565 1,290,595 1,465,450 1,302,500
Opera�ng Expenses (-) 147,900 179,100 186,400 57,900 36,000
Capital Expenses (-) 0 756,550 1,255,200 1,242,400 649,850
Surplus (Shor�all) (65,725) (106,085) (151,005) 165,150 616,650
1,190,729 1,661,969
300,000
471,240
300,000
33
April 2016
park, or another civic facility. It also allows the City to develop the property
which produces short-term construction economic impacts, and longer
term industry economic impacts such as new jobs and increased tax base.
Findings for Alternative 2 - Airport Closure – Not recommended due to the
high cost of lease buyouts and negative aviation implications, in addition
to the loss of services and economic activity that would occur for the City
of Kalispell. Losing an access point for emergency medical transportation,
search and rescue operations, law enforcement operations, and other
emergency services would be a significant loss which is not quantifiable in
terms of City finances.
Alternative 2 – Action Plan
Should the City decide to move forward with Alternative 2, the following
steps should be taken:
1. Consult legal counsel on the best path forward for closure and lease
buyout.
2. Plan for a date, in the future, on which the City will no longer provide
for aviation operations.
3. Begin a conversation and dialogue with leaseholders on decision to
close and the date which closure will occur.
4. Begin lease appraisal process.
5. Conclude lease buyout process with legal counsel.
6. Advertise closure date and provide adequate time for users to relocate.
7. Close the Airport and demolish the runway.
8. Sell or lease the property.
34
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Alternative 3 – FAA Compliant Airport in Current Runway Alignment
Another alternative suggested during the public outreach process was one
that would re-engage the FAA in the Airport’s future. This proposal would
involve using FAA funding for improvement projects to bring the Airport
into compliance with FAA design standards. The Airport will remain in its
existing location, with the same runway configuration and alignment. The
feasibility and success of Alternative 3 depends on FAA willingness to fund
the necessary improvement projects. In the early stages of this project,
FAA staff at the Helena Airport District Office were contacted about the
possibility of re-involvement with the Kalispell City Airport. The FAA said
that it is still possible for the City to become eligible for and receive FAA
funds. A re-validation analysis and discussion would be required between
the City and the FAA but the possibility is not off the table. Alternative 3 will
implement the airfield development plan “Site 1 – Option D” from the 2012
Final Airport Master Plan Update. A graphic of the project components is
located at the end of this document. Project components included in the
2012 Final Airport Master Plan Update are as follows:
• Airport facilities constructed to Airport Reference Code (ARC)
B-I design standards (60 feet runway width, 150 feet separation
between runway and taxiway, 25 feet wide taxiways).
• Runway reconstructed to its current length of 3,700 feet but could be
extended to a length of 4,300 feet.
• No shift or offset of runway centerline.
• No rotation, orientation remains 13/31.
• Requires the relocation of five hangars and three shops on Airport
property.
• Requires the full or partial acquisition of approximately 16 land
parcels (no residential)
The FAA has indicated to the
City of Kalispell that there is not
funding available for ARC B-I
airports. Although B-I is a FAA
design standard, and upgrading
the airfield to B-I standards would
meet FAA design criteria, B-I
airports are such a low priority for
the FAA Helena Airports District
Office it is unlikely that the level
of capital investment needed to
perform the upgrades would ever
become available. A pro forma for
Alternative 3 was prepared, and is
included in Appendix A.
The FAA indicated that if the City
chose to construct the Airport to ARC B-II standards, which would
require larger safety areas and setbacks, then funding may become
available. The City voted against funding an ARC B-II Airport and this
option is not explored further.
Due to the severe challenges associated with its implementation,
Alternative 3 is removed from consideration.
The Airport Reference Code (ARC)
has two components relating to
the Airport design aircraft. The first
component, depicted by a letter,
is the aircraft approach category
and relates to aircraft approach
speed (operational characteristic).
The second component, depicted
by a Roman numeral, is the
airplane design group and relates
to airplane wingspan or tail
height (physical characteristics),
whichever is the most restrictive.
35
April 2016
36
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Alternative 4 – Incorporation into an Airport Authority
There is a possibility that the Kalispell City Airport could be incorporated into an airport authority. Airport authorities are independent, public agencies created by state legislation. Many different forms of authorities exist. Some have the power to levy taxes and the use of eminent domain, and some do not. Airport authorities of some type make up approximately 39% of airport ownership structures nationwide.
Figure 24 presents generalized advantages and disadvantages of an authority - exceptions exist in all cases.
Figure 24: Airport Management Structure Comparison
Authority Municipality
Ad
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
s
• Provides focused leadership
• Insulates elected officials
• Better serves a larger
community
• Provides a business focus
• Access to other city resources
• Power to tax & eminent
domain
• Issue bonds
Di
s
a
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
s
• Money may not be available
to support the Airport
• Greater exposure to liability
(need to purchase insurance)
• Financial and political
constraints
• Airport competes for
attention/resources
• Leadership may not focus on
airport exclusively
A second airport authority option is that the Kalispell City Airport forms its own airport authority independent of the FMAA. This option would increase costs in the short-run as additional airports or revenue generating facilities would need to be acquired and a new taxation zone would need to be established to support the new airport authority’s operations. In the absence of a tax, and without an airport with strong revenue generating potential in the authority, it is unlikely that this option would be financially advantageous to the City or the new airport authority. City legal council should be consulted on the potential for taxing authority if two independent airport authorities existed within the same county.
If Kalispell City Airport was to be incorporated into the FMAA or other authority, the City of Kalispell would likely lose control of decisions regarding airport management, operations and finance. The City would also lose potential revenue generated through airport improvements; however, it would benefit from spill-over economic growth associated with on-airport businesses.
Fiscal Impacts: Depending on the agreement made between the City and the future Airport Authority, any sale proceeds would go to the City of Kalispell. The new Airport Authority would then assume responsibilities for financial obligations as well as collection of any revenue.
Due to the absence of facts about Alternative 4 costs and revenues, no DCFA was performed. The City will need to do additional analysis before a DCFA can be performed.
Findings for Alternative 4: Incorporation into an Airport Authority – If the City chooses to explore the Airport Authority path, the City would need to hold a meeting the FMAA on the topic to gauge interest and benefits for both parties.The Flathead Municipal Airport Authority (FMAA) operates Glacier Park
International Airport and two GA airports (Ferndale and Whitefish). Some
comments at public outreach events asked what potential exists for the
Airport to join the FMAA, and what potential exists for creating a new
authority for the Airport and perhaps others nearby?
Inclusion of the Airport into the FMAA would require an agreement between
the City of Kalispell and the FMAA. Considering that the FMAA already
operates two GA facilities, it is unlikely that they would need to acquire a
third; however, there may be operational benefits and economies of scale for
the FMAA which increase interest. It is recommended that the City approach
the FMAA Board of Directors to discuss the practicality of joining FMAA.
37
April 2016
Alternative 5 – Privatize the Airport
Within the contents of this study the airport is shown to lose money in all of the primary three financial alternatives. If the City of Kalispell keeps the airport as is, it continues to lose money. If the City takes FAA funding, keeping the runway orientation in-place, it continues to lose money. Based on the findings of this study, the City also loses money if the airport is closed in the near future and is sold for alternative uses. For purposes of this report, sale values for the airport property are $25,000/acre when looking at the airport land on a gross sale basis.
Often municipalities and counties are faced with decisions of operational shortfalls or looking to transfer services and even infrastructure to the private sector. Across North America it is quite common for governmental entities to privatize services and infrastructure of all types, including water, sewer, sanitary and landfill services. Some toll roads are examples of private or public-private partnerships in transportation. Over the past 25 years the federal government has privatized tens of thousands of acres of land across the country in dozens of military base closure operations, many of which include airports. In fact, if there is a service being provided by a government entity it generally can be provided by the private sector as well.
If the City of Kalispell wanted to explore the true value of the airport property and set some conditions in its transfer of the land, the City could establish and issue an airport acquisition request for proposal (RFP). From a land development standpoint the airport does offer some attractive conditions including readily available utilities and vehicular access, as well as surrounding services. As previously stated, the existing airport hangar leases and required buy-out pose confusing conditions for the next many years. However, often the private sector can do things the public sector cannot including negotiating lease buyouts for cash or non-cash considerations in relation to a greater development. The old adage that the private sector can move faster than the public sector is often, but not always, true.
If the City chose to issue an acquisition RFP it could also choose to favorably weigh continued use as an airport for a minimum number of years as a key decision factor in any transfer of land. This would send the signal to the private sector aviation industry to investigate a private sector operation of the airport, as well as give time and possible initiative to the Flathead
Municipal Airport Authority to consider its options in acquiring and operating the airport. The City would want to make its intentions clear and give ample time for development, or groups entertaining the option of continuing to operate the airport, traction to put together deals to respond to the RFP.
Minimum elements the City will want to consider if it chooses this option include the following:
• Conduct a true detailed real estate appraisal of airport property prior to accepting RFP results,
• Set minimum return expectations,
• Establish a schedule for due diligence during the RFP (Minimum 180 days),
• If the airport is to continue to operate, is there a minimum time
frame for its operation (ie. 10 years) and minimum time frame to
bring airport up to FAA standards,
• If the airport is to be repurposed, a transition should identify holding the City harmless for hanger lease termination occurring prior to airport closure.
• Explore all available legal angles of privatizing city owned land.
Exploring a Privatization option is really a combination of the previous four options as each of them could actually become a part of the results of any RFP. The major issue herein is that the City of Kalispell gets out of the General Aviation airport business. In privatizing, any scenario may come forward including:
• Keeping the airport operating in its current configuration,
• Closing and repurposing the airport for other land uses,
• Utilizing FAA funds if the airport were to be acquired by another governmental entity or airport authority,
• Acquisition by an existing or newly established airport authority.
If at the end of the RFP period the City is unhappy with the results of any offers received, the council could move forward with any option it chose. It would have a clearer understanding at that time of what the private or quasi private sector thought of the value of the land as a viable airport or alternative real estate development potential.
38
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
SUMMARY – COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives presented require investment from the City. Potential funding
sources include the FAA, the Montana Department of Transportation, the
TIF fund (for certain improvements) and the City’s general fund. The City
could also issue a revenue bond or look for private investors. Regardless of
the funding source, the City will need to make an investment in the Airport
in order to generate additional revenues necessary to make the Airport
profitable. Without additional funding over the next five years the Airport
will continue to lose money and facilities will degrade to a point where
they may become inoperable. The same is true for the investment required
to close the Airport, as leases will need to be bought out and the property
will need to be redeveloped.
The alternatives presented above contain aeronautical, community, and
financial implications to the City. The aeronautical factors of the alternatives
are not quantifiable in the way that the economic factors are. Ultimately,
what alternative is best depends greatly on the community’s vision for the
Airport. Alternative 1 gives the City flexibility to close the Airport in the
future should private development not arrive; however, the capital costs
for Alternative 1 are $900,000. The capital costs associated with Alternative
2 are nearly three and a half times as expensive as Alternative 1 over the
next five years; however, 96 percent of these expenses can be covered with
TIF funds and the remaining can be covered from property sale proceeds.
Alternative 2 provides the City with an opportunity to convert the Airport
to a land use that provides greater civic or economic benefit. Alternative 2
also frees the City of on-going airport maintenance beyond five years. Key
benefits and drawbacks of each alternative are summarized in Figure 25.
Financial analysis was run for two of the five alternatives and the baseline
scenario. Financial considerations and ranking is based on return on
investment and what the investment provides the City and the surrounding
community .
[Figure 25: Alternative Summary]
[F ig u re 3 0 : A lte rn a tiv e S u m m a ry ]
A ltern ative
C ap ital C o sts
5 Year Cash
F lo w s
Ongoing
In c o m e
D CFA
Valuation
Benefits D raw b acks
A ltern ative 1
$900,000 ($1,000,000) ($300,000) (1,300,000)
P ro v id e s sa fe , e ffi c ie n t a irp o rt
G re a te r fl e x ib ility if c lo su re so u g h t
in long-term
C ity in v e stm e n t m a y in sp ire p riv a te
investm ent
D o e s n o t m e e t FA A sta n d a rd s
C ity m u st se lf-fu n d fu tu re c a p ita l
im provem ents and m aintenance
N o t e lig ib le fo r T IF fu n d s
A ltern ative 2
$2,900,000 $400,000 $0 $400,000
A b ility to re u se site fo r p o te n tia l
greater econom ic benefit
P o te n tia l fo r C ity to p ro fi t in ste a d o f
o p e ra tin g fa c ility a t a lo ss
O th e r fa c ilitie s in a re a to ta k e
displaced users
A b le to u se T IF fu n d s
Considerable up-front financial
investm ent
L o ss o f a v ia tio n fa c ility a n d
association em ergency
m anagem ent / disaster relief
benefits
M any unknowns about future
revenue potential
A ltern ative 3
$400,000 ($200,000)$400,000 $400,000
P ro v id e s sa fe , e ffi c ie n t a irp o rt
L o w e r c a p ita l c o sts d u e to FA A
fu n d s
Ongoing FAA entitlem ent funding
A b le to u se T IF fu n d s fo r so m e
p ro je c ts
C ity a n d FA A in v e stm e n t m a y
in sp ire p riv a te in v e stm e n t
L o ss o f fl e x ib ility if c lo su re so u g h t in
long-term
M ore substantial capital
im provem ents needed to m eet FAA
standards
Contrary to voter decision
A irp o rt w ill c o n tin u e to lo se m o n e y
N o te : C a p ita l c o sts a re fa c to re d in to 5 Y e a r C a sh F lo w s, a lo n g w ith o p e ra tin g re v e n u e s a n d o p e ra tin g e x p e n se s.
D C FA V a lu a tio n = 5 Y e a r C a sh F lo w s + O n g o in g In c o m e
34
[F ig u re 3 0 : A lte rn a tiv e S u m m a ry ]
A ltern ative
C ap ital C o sts
5 Year Cash
F lo w s
Ongoing
In c o m e
D CFA
Valuation
Benefits D raw b acks
A ltern ative 1
$900,000 ($1,000,000) ($300,000) (1,300,000)
P ro v id e s sa fe , e ffi c ie n t a irp o rt
G re a te r fl e x ib ility if c lo su re so u g h t in long-term
C ity in v e stm e n t m a y in sp ire p riv a te
investm ent
D o e s n o t m e e t FA A sta n d a rd s
C ity m u st se lf-fu n d fu tu re c a p ita l im provem ents and m aintenance
N o t e lig ib le fo r T IF fu n d s
A ltern ative 2
$2,900,000 $400,000 $0 $400,000
A b ility to re u se site fo r p o te n tia l greater econom ic benefit
P o te n tia l fo r C ity to p ro fi t in ste a d o f
o p e ra tin g fa c ility a t a lo ss
O th e r fa c ilitie s in a re a to ta k e displaced users
A b le to u se T IF fu n d s
Considerable up-front financial investm ent
L o ss o f a v ia tio n fa c ility a n d
association em ergency
m anagem ent / disaster relief benefits
M any unknowns about future
revenue potential
A ltern ative 3
$400,000 ($200,000)$400,000 $400,000
P ro v id e s sa fe , e ffi c ie n t a irp o rt
L o w e r c a p ita l c o sts d u e to FA A fu n d s
Ongoing FAA entitlem ent funding
A b le to u se T IF fu n d s fo r so m e
p ro je c ts
C ity a n d FA A in v e stm e n t m a y in sp ire p riv a te in v e stm e n t
L o ss o f fl e x ib ility if c lo su re so u g h t inlong-term
M ore substantial capital
im provem ents needed to m eet FAA
standards
Contrary to voter decision
A irp o rt w ill c o n tin u e to lo se m o n e y
N o te : C a p ita l c o sts a re fa c to re d in to 5 Y e a r C a sh F lo w s, a lo n g w ith o p e ra tin g re v e n u e s a n d o p e ra tin g e x p e n se s.
D C FA V a lu a tio n = 5 Y e a r C a sh F lo w s + O n g o in g In c o m e
34
$300,000$300,000$3,100,000
39
April 2016
[Figure 26: Baseline and Alternative Returns on Investment]Alternative 2 has higher capital costs than Alternative 1 and produces a
positive cash flow over the five years as TIF funds and proceeds from the
sale of land cover closure costs. Should the City sell and allow development
on the property, the tax revenue will improve the DCFA valuation and
make Alternative 2 even more competitive than Alternative 1 from a
DCFA perspective. It is recommended that the City investigate what the
development potential is on this piece of property and whether the City
can afford to pay the closure fees and wait for years to be reimbursed
through property taxes. Alternative 2 has higher capital costs than the
baseline “do nothing” scenario, but the return on investment (through
land sale and elimination of ongoing airport maintenance costs) is more
promising than continuing to operate the Airport at a loss.
Of the two scenarios, Alternative 2 provides a positive DCFA valuation
of $300,000; however, the capital costs are higher. The key difference
is whether the City wishes to keep the property as an airport or not.
Alternative 2 removes the aviation asset, freeing the City from the expense
of operating the Airport but potentially eliminating associated economic
benefit in the process.
300,000 3,100,000
40
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
ENDNOTES ASSUMPTIONS AND SOURCES
1. County data https://flathead.mt.gov/about_flathead_county/index.
php
2. Cash flow information provided by the City of Kalispell.
3. East Taxiway - Assumed cost of $38 per sq. yard of asphalt overlay
applied to an area of 8,000 sq. yards.
4. West Taxiway - Assumed cost of $38 per sq. yard of asphalt overlay
applied to an area of 5,078 sq. yards.
5. Estimated salary including benefits.
6. Hangar site lease revenue estimates based on $0.16/sq. ft. for ten (10)
60’x60’ and five (5) 100’x100’ box hangars with progressive ground
lease structures. Range in revenue reflects initial lease year and end
lease year.
7. Ground lease non-aviation revenue assumes $0.16/sq. ft. for a large
(180,000 sq. ft. leasehold) non-aviation related development on the
City owned compost site.
8. Assumes $1 million for site work/paving/utilities and $1.5 million for
buildings. Based on engineers planning level estimate. Results in 18
new t-hangars with lease rates of $500 per month.
9. Calculated based on remaining ground lease terms. Assumes initial
hangar construction costs of $130/sq. ft. See Lease Summary Table
for compiled lease information.
10. $1.9m estimate brought forward from 2012 Airport Master Plan
estimates. Assumes fair market buyout of seven (7) hangar leases.
See Table 6-2 contained in 2012 Airport Master Plan.
11. Estimate assumes 25% of the 2012 Airport Master Plan $2.6 million
buyout estimate for both Red Eagle and the Hilton lease. Inclusion
of the Hilton lease was incorrect and inflating that number. The 25%
estimate was based subtracting out the more expensive highway
frontage and more substantial investment in the Hilton property.
12. Demolition of runway assumes two days of work (16 hours) by two
pieces of heavy earthmoving equipment at $156/hr.
13. Assumes the FAA would be willing to negotiate and come to an
agreement on the future configuration of the Airport
14. Typical cost for ALP update
15. Alternative 3 cost assumptions brought forward from 2012 Airport
Master Plan
16. Obstruction removal refers to the relocation of five hangars and
three shops on airport property. Source 2012 Airport Master Plan.
17. Source: Airport Council International
41
April 2016
U
S
H
W
Y
9
3
S
WIL
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
CEMETERY RD
KELLY RD
3R
D
A
V
E
E
13TH ST E 5T
H
A
V
E
E
S W
O
O
D
L
A
N
D
D
R
STAG LN
18TH ST E 18TH ST E
14TH ST E
1S
T
A
V
E
W
TEAL DR
BISON DR
1ST
A
V
E
E
HAVEN DR
4T
H
A
V
E
E
WOODLAND AVE
TWIN ACRES DR
WELF LN
MERGANSER DR
2N
D
A
V
E
E
1S
T
A
V
E
E
CO
N
D
O
R
D
R
BLU
E
S
T
O
N
E
D
R
SHEFFERD LN
6T
H
A
V
E
E
7T
H
A
V
E
E
EAGLE DR
AIR
P
O
R
T
R
D
RUSSELL DR
LEHI LN
M
U
S
K
R
A
T
D
R
CO
O
T
C
T
MEADOWLARK
S
O
U
T
H
F
I
E
L
D
D
R
MAL
L
A
R
D
D
R
RIVER GLEN CT
QUINCY LOOP
WID
G
E
O
N
C
T
17TH ST W
SOUTHFIE
L
D
L
N
BEGG PARK DR
S W
O
O
D
L
A
N
D
D
R
EAG
L
E
D
R
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
0 330 660 1320 FT N
Residential
SOUTH KALISPELL URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICTExisting Land Use
Industrial
Mobile Home Park
Commercial Professional Office or Health Care
Government Facility
Sewer Treatment Plant
Open Space
Airport, Golf Course, Fairgrounds
City Limits
South Kalispell/Airport Redevelopment Area
Current Airport Tax Increment Finance District
U
S
H
W
Y
9
3
S
WIL
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
CEMETERY RD
KELLY RD
3RD AVE E 13TH ST E 5TH AVE E S WOODLAND DRSTAG LN18TH ST E 18TH ST E14TH ST E1ST AVE W
TEAL DR
BISON DR1ST AVE E HAVEN DR4TH AVE E WOODLAND AVE
TWIN ACRES DR
WELF LN
MERGANSER DR
2ND AVE E1ST AVE E
CO
N
D
O
R
D
R
BLU
E
S
T
O
N
E
D
R
SHEFFERD LN
6TH AVE E 7TH AVE E
EAGLE DR
AIR
P
O
R
T
R
D
RUSSELL DR
LEHI LN
MU
S
K
R
A
T
D
R
CO
O
T
C
T
MEADOWLARK
SOUTHFIELD DR
MA
L
L
A
R
D
D
R
RIVER GLEN CTQUINCY LOOP
WID
G
E
O
N
C
T
17TH ST W SOUTHFIELD LN
BEGG PARK D
R
S W
O
O
D
L
A
N
D
D
R
EA
G
L
E
D
R
S MAIN ST
0 330 660 1320 FT N
Residential
SOUTH KALISPELL URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICTExisting Land Use
Industrial
Mobile Home Park
Commercial Professional Office or Health Care
Government Facility
Sewer Treatment Plant
Open Space
Airport, Golf Course, Fairgrounds
City Limits
South Kalispell/Airport Redevelopment Area
Current Airport Tax Increment Finance District
US HWY 93 S
WIL
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
CEMETERY RD
KELLY RD3RD AVE E 13TH ST E 5TH AVE E S WOODLAND DRSTAG LN18TH ST E 18TH ST E14TH ST E1ST AVE WTEAL DR BISON DR1ST AVE E HAVEN DR4TH AVE E WOODLAND AVETWIN ACRES DR
WELF LN
MERGANSER DR 2ND AVE E1ST AVE E CONDOR DRBLUESTONE DR
SHEFFERD LN
6TH AVE E 7TH AVE E EAGLE DRAIRPORT RD RUSSELL DRLEHI LN MUSKRAT DRCOOT CT
MEADOWLARK
SOUTHFIELD DR MALLARD DR RIVER GLEN CTQUINCY LOOPWIDGEON CT 17TH ST W SOUTHFIELD LNBEGG PARK DR S WOODLAND DR EAGLE DRS MAIN ST
0 330 660 1320 FT N
Residential
SOUTH KALISPELL URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICTExisting Land Use
Industrial
Mobile Home Park
Commercial Professional Office or Health Care
Government Facility
Sewer Treatment Plant
Open Space
Airport, Golf Course, Fairgrounds
City Limits
South Kalispell/Airport Redevelopment Area
Current Airport Tax Increment Finance District
US HWY 93 S
WIL
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
CEMETERY RD
KELLY RD3RD AVE E 13TH ST E 5TH AVE E S WOODLAND DRSTAG LN18TH ST E 18TH ST E14TH ST E1ST AVE WTEAL DR BISON DR1ST AVE E HAVEN DR4TH AVE E WOODLAND AVE
TWIN ACRES DR
WELF LN
MERGANSER DR
2ND AVE E1ST AVE E CONDOR DRBLUESTONE DR
SHEFFERD LN
6TH AVE E 7TH AVE E EAGLE DRAIRPORT RD RUSSELL DRLEHI LN MUSKRAT DR
CO
O
T
C
T
MEADOWLARK
SOUTHFIELD DR MALLARD DR RIVER GLEN CTQUINCY LOOP
WID
G
E
O
N
C
T
17TH ST W SOUTHFIELD LNBEGG PARK DR S WOODLAND DR EAGLE DRS MAIN ST
Figure 27: Existing Land Use Map
42
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan4
The goal of the South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan is to integrate sustainable,
socially responsible, and economically sound recommendations and
implementation strategies to improve the quality of life for residents of
Kalispell and the greater region.
Land use planning is a political and iterative process that needs to remain
flexible and open to changing conditions. Decisions made with active
participation, using a consensus building process, have a greater chance of
implementation and success.
This plan will incorporate smart growth policies such as promoting infill
development, mixed use development, protecting natural resources,
encouraging walkability, and redevelopment opportunities.
Existing land use in the South Kalispell Urban Renewal District include a
variety of commercial, industrial, mixed use, and residential properties, as
well a large amount of undeveloped open space (see Figure 25). One of the
major land holders in the Planning Area is the Kalispell City Airport, which
occupies approximately 10% of the larger 720-acre planning area.
Developing partnerships between public entities and private development
can maximize limited resources and provide for a more robust investment
opportunity and create a better outcome for the long term health of
the community. These agreements can also ensure a more consistent
development standard and pattern between cities and counties increasing
the levels of service for health, safety, fire, and general livability.
LAND USE STRATEGIES
DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND STRATEGIES
April 2016
43
DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
The following Development Guidelines are general policy statements that
inform land use decisions within the Urban Renewal District.
Attract the Right Type and Size of Development
A city can influence where and what kind of growth happens by pointing
out locations where public services and other environmental factors make
the most sense for new development. Once these locations are indicated
on a map, the City can make it easier to develop a project with various
incentives.
Provide the Highest Level of Public Services and Facilities
Growing without subsequently expanding public infrastructure impairs
the City’s ability to provide a high level of public service to Kalispell’s
taxpayers. Within their limits, the City should make decisions based upon
the impacts a project has on their ability to provide services such as water,
sewer, emergency services, roads and other customer services.
Attract High Quality Projects
Higher quality development can cost more, however low quality projects
become a burden on the City and its residents over time. The City can only
afford to move forward by approving and building the best projects the
market will bear.
Promote a Transportation Network that is Safe for Pedestrians, Bikes,
and Vehicles
Increased traffic volumes related to urban development have raised
significant concerns about vehicular and pedestrian safety. Public officials
and agencies should strive to provide a network of streets that are safe and
accessible for all modes of travel, and where possible, implement urban
design elements that encourage reduced speeds in high traffic areas.
A South Kalispell for Everyone
Kalispell is home to people of all means, but across the region rising costs
of services, goods and housing is driving out long-time residents and
preventing new residents from moving to town. Supporting development
that provides affordable housing and a mix of uses and services should be
a priority in the Urban Renewal District.
A Sustainable South Kalispell
A sustainable city is one that is structured to survive a potential bust, and
one that considers impacts to the environment as it grows. Economic
growth in the region will one day stop, and the City can prepare by making
sustainable fiscal and land use decisions now. The City must institute
careful planning to avoid overbuilding or overextending infrastructure.
Supporting environmentally-sensitive development is also a priority.
Encouraging builders to use locally-sourced materials is an example of
sustainable development that saves on transportation costs and supports
local businesses.
44
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Promote a Family-Oriented Community
Families have and will continue to move into South Kalispell because of
the existing family-oriented character. Ensuring there are resources that
support the health, safety, convenience and livelihoods of families young
and old will improve the quality of life for all area residents. Neighborhood
amenities, such as local businesses, parks, community activity centers
(churches, schools or clubs), grocery stores and banks, for example, build a
strong family-friendly community.
Keep the Small Town Character
Part of the attraction of living in Kalispell is the small town character, which
is derived from the rural lifestyle, close-knit and friendly neighbors and
quiet neighborhoods. Within the commercial area of town, a welcoming,
pedestrian-scaled environment with local businesses and slow traffic
speeds contributes to the unhurried, small town atmosphere.
Keep South Kalispell Beautiful
Sweeping vistas, plentiful natural open space and local culture all contribute
to South Kalispell’s beauty. Maintaining these elements for future
generations to enjoy is a goal that requires tremendous foresight on the
part of local leaders. Enacting policies that preserve open space and views,
and require native, drought-tolerant plantings that are appropriate for this
region will help achieve this goal. Also, encouraging new construction that
is compatible with the town’s historic fabric is a great example of how local
character contributes to a beautiful city.
April 2016
45
Improvement Projects or Opportunity Sites Acres Ownership
1. Cemetery Road Project 5 Public
2. New Elementary School 25 School District 5
3. Dog Park 2 to 5 1 Private Owner
4. Community Park 15 1 Private Owner
5. Highway 93 Trail Expansion —Public Right-of-Way
6. “Welcome to Kalispell” Sign —Public Right-of-Way
7. Highway 93 Business Park 7.5 City of Kalispell, 1 Private Owner
8. Aviation Business Park 3 Whitefish Credit Union
9. Park-N-Ride/Trailhead 4.4 MT Dept. of Transportation
10. Relocate City Shops for Mixed-Use Development 4.9 City of Kalispell
IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND OPPORTUNITY
SITES
The following list describes some examples of high-level projects intended
to implement the long-term redevelopment vision expressed in this
plan. Specific capital projects are categorized into broader improvement
categories.
These projects are reflective of a series of capital projects that the city might
implement unilaterally and in conjunction with private development
interests to strengthen the urban fabric of South Kalispell.
Figure 28: Improvements Projects and Opportunity Sites Table
46
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
7
9
3
6
51
8
10
2
4
10
0 1/4 1/2 Mile1/8 N
City of Kalispell
South Kalispell Urban Renewal District
7 Business Park
9 Park-N-Ride/Trailhead
10 Mixed-Use Development
3 Dog Park
4 Community Park
6 Welcome to Kalispell Sign
5 HWY 93 Trail Expansion
1 Cemetery Rd Project
8 Aviation Business Park
2 New Elementary School
Figure 29: Improvements Projects and Opportunity Sites Map
April 2016
47
Figure 30: Cemetery Road Improvement Concept
Improvement 1. Improve Cemetery Road from Airport Road to Highway 93
Currently constructed to county road profiles, Cemetery Road is more and
more undersized for the increasing amount of traffic. While not in the confines
of this study, we recommend a Traffic Study be conducted for Cemetery
Road to determine current traffic counts and projected traffic counts due to
the new school programmed at Airport Road north of Cemetery Road.
Even without an increase in expected traffic volume, the current roadway
is in substandard shape for a major east-west corridor bordering the
southern boundary of the Airport. The roadway is narrow and lacks
adequate shoulders and pedestrian and bicycle separation. Specifically,
there needs to be a new bridge or major pipe arch over the Ashley Creek.
The current culvert is undersized and increases the potential for flooding
upstream of the crossing.
With the eventual addition of an elementary school on the south west side
of the Urban Renewal District, additional vehicle and pedestrian traffic will
be evident along Cemetery Road.
48
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Improvement 2. New Elementary School
The Kalispell School District has purchased land along Airport Road directly
south of the City’s wastewater treatment plant. This plan does not propose
to develop the new elementary school, but rather intends to proactively
identify potential opportunities and challenges, with the assumption that
the new school will be constructed within a five-year period.
The school district will plan and develop the new school. Figure 31 depicts
how a proposed school might fit in the site. Specific concerns include
setback of the school from Airport Road and enabling a sense of arrival to
the school. Significant components to the site plan include a perimeter road
around the school with accessibility to future residential development areas
to the south and east.
Figure 31: New Elementary School Concept
April 2016
49
Improvement 3. Dog Park
Perhaps one of the most positively discussed recommendations during
the course of the public outreach process was the concept of a dog park
located within the South Kalispell Urban Renewal District. Dog parks can
be an incredibly utilized public gathering space where adults, children,
and dogs can recreate.
This environment requires thoughtful planning around regulations for
public health and welfare. Dog parks should be fenced and should require
DOG PARK
250’125’0 62.5’
Figure 32: Dog Park Concept
verification of current veterinary records and licensing. It is also common
for an entry fee to be utilized for a dog park that would include a card
reader access pass for entry.
In the proposed location shown in Figure 32 the dog park is part of
the proposed community park. A future cost estimate can be found in
Appendix B.
50
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Improvement 4. Community Park
As part of the overall Urban Renewal District a 15 to 30 acre community
park is recommended. Possible locations include a 15-acre parcel south of
Cemetery Road and west of Highway 93. This community park will offer
an opportunity to relocate Begg Park and provide a large open space
recreational park with various opportunities for diverse uses such as disc
golf, adult exercise classes, painting classes, community gardens, and
family or community gatherings.
Studies show that community revitalization can happen when cities invest
in parks. Community engagement, economic development, tourism, and
green infrastructure are just a few of the benefits of a healthy community
park system. Detailed cost estimates can be found in Appendix B.
Figure 33: Community Park Concept
April 2016
51
Improvement 5. Highway 93 Trail Expansion
As new development occurs along the east side of Highway 93, there is an
opportunity to construct a bike tail bordering the property. While slowly
this trail linkage is taking shape, it is too slow to be useful, leaving large gaps
of unconstructed trail. Recommended as part of the South Kalispell Urban
Renewal District Plan is to create a ‘bridge the gap’ wholesale development
of a bike trail, uniting the district along its most visible corridor.
The city is encouraged to approach Montana Department of Transportation
(MDT) to help facilitate the trail system along the right-of-way. As
currently envisioned, the bike trail could be equally split between MDT,
the City of Kalispell, and private funding sources. The trail construction is
approximately 1.5 miles in length connecting it to the northern part of the
City’s street system. Detailed cost estimates can be found in Appendix B.
Figure 34: Trail Expansion Concept
52
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Improvement 6. Welcome to Kalispell
Located at the intersection of Highway 93 and the Highway 93 Bypass, on
the east side of the highway, is a proposed location for an official Welcome
to Kalispell entry monument. This feature must make a statement that you
are entering the City of Kalispell. As one of the more straightforward projects
to be proposed in the Plan, this feature will provide visitors to Kalispell firm
acknowledgement that they have arrived. City entry monuments are a
traditional means to identify a city’s location and character.
Figure 35: Welcome to Kalispell Sign Concept
In 2013 the City undertook a Way Finding Project to develop a common
city entrance sign and way finding plan that would tie the various sectors
of Kalispell together under one unifying vision. The effort included an
extensive public outreach process with the end result being the Welcome
to Kalispell sign as seen in Figure 35. Also included was way finding
signage for identifying the historic downtown district, museums, Kidsports
Complex, parks, and other public facilities.
April 2016
53
Improvement 7. Highway 93 Business Park
The predominant land use in the South Kalispell Urban Renewal District
is a mixture of light industrial and commercial. The majority of the light
industrial is individually developed along Highway 93 and as a whole is
somewhat random. Still the opportunity exists to create a catalyst project
south of Cemetery Road on the west side of Highway 93 for a business park
featuring a combination of light industrial and commercial developments.
A Business Park featuring development opportunities such as can be
developed in phases and become a catalyst for new development types in
the renewal district.Figure 36: Highway 93 Business Park Design Example
54
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Figure 37: Highway 93 Business Park Concept
April 2016
55
Improvement 8. Aviation Business Park
Should the City elect to keep or expand the General Aviation airport, ancillary
development compatible with zoning and aviation uses could greatly
improve the sustainability of the Airport. Given the location of the Airport
and the existing infrastructure at the Airport (roads, electrical service, gas,
water, sewer, fiber optic), the investment for an Aviation Business Park could
be highly marketable. These highly flexible warehouse and office space can
provide technologically advanced turnkey business opportunities.
Figure 38: Aviation Business Park Concept
The example shown in Figure 38 doubles as an enhanced entry to the
Airport capitalizing on a new entry sign and better definition to – and
identification of – the Airport.
Should the Airport remain, a concerted effort should be made to embrace
the Airport as a part of the South Kalispell urban fabric. The location of
the site is in a privately-owned tract of land south of the Hilton Hotel and
bordering Highway 93.
56
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Improvement 9. Park-N-Ride Trailhead
Located off the US Highway 93 Bypass directly south of the Urban Renewal
District, a roughly 4.4 acre MDT-owned parcel has potential to be used
for a trailhead and to provide needed parking for recreational uses. Being
adjacent to Ashley Creek and the regional bicycle trail, this site has potential
for various recreational and open space activities should MDT choose
to develop or transfer the land. Detailed cost estimates can be found in
Appendix B.
Figure 39: Park-N-Ride Trailhead Concept
April 2016
57
Improvement 10. Relocate City Shops for Mixed-Use Development
The City of Kalispell Shops are located on an approximately 4.9 acre site
located on 1st Avenue West adjacent to Legends Stadium. Relocating the
shops to other city-owned land on the Airport property would provide
a strategic site for new mixed use development. The value of a land sale
could aid in relocation costs.
Figure 40 : Relocated City Shop Complex Concept
A new 1st Avenue Commercial District development (Figure 40) could also
potentially provide evening and weekend parking for the stadium, which
currently has no parking.
58
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Figure 41: 1st Ave Commercial District Concept
April 2016
59
AIRPORT REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY
Redevelopment of the Airport property is an alternative the City needs to
consider if the decision is made not to continue airport operations.
Historical planning efforts have mainly focused on keeping and maintaining
the Airport. These comprehensive plans have laid out deficiencies and
improvements required along with the necessary capital required to
complete these improvements, but very little planning effort has been
spent on what potential redevelopment options could happen at the
Airport and what the possibilities might look like.
Over the last several decades, extensive development has occurred in and
around the Airport reflecting a mixture of land use and zoning such as
government facilities, commercial, residential, open space, and industrial.
Redevelopment could occur using a number of these development
options.
The South Kalispell Airport TIF encompasses a total of 230 acres of which
the Airport is approximately 71 acres. In perspective to the entire SKURD
planning area of 720 acres, the Airport represents about 10% of the overall
planning area. Kalispell City Airport is part of this TIF District and as such
has been the beneficiary of some of the TIF funds. Some of these funds
have been used to reinvest in Airport infrastructure and maintenance.
The airport property has extensive infrastructure available for
redevelopment purposes including: sewer, water, fiber optic, gas, telephone,
and underground power. With a heavy investment in infrastructure already
in place, developers may find this property as having a built in incentive
and ripe for redevelopment.
Through the public outreach process community comments included
creating an anchor for the South Kalispell area that would help spur
additional economic interest and development.
Preliminary discussions with Flathead Valley Fairgrounds staff identified
limited expansion opportunities at the current fairground location. As
additional growth and changing demands of the community occur, there
may be a need for future fairground space. Recognizing that County
Commissioners have made a concerted effort to reinvest in existing
fairground facilities, and recognizing the difficulty in replacing the existing
level of infrastructure, one option for future expansion may be the use
of a portion of the redeveloped airport property to support ancillary
fairground uses. Current City zoning supports this land use at this location,
however, this opportunity would require a significant effort on the City’s
and County’s part to work together to meet these larger regional goals.
Figure 42 shows a redevelopment option that includes a new High School
as well as County Fairground Facility.
Another alternative the City could consider for repurposing the Airport is to
convert the property to private land use. The land use plan shown on Figure
43 depicts a possible land-use alternative that includes: light industrial
on the southernmost portion of the Airport, transitioning to mixed use
and multifamily moving north. An investment of a new commercial
collector roadway with cul-de-sacs has been identified within the central
north-south core of the west taxi way and provides a central spine access
through the site, as well as enhances the development opportunity of the
new repurposed airport.
If the City chooses to sell the Airport property and allow for redevelopment
the City would begin to realize additional tax revenue as the property
developed. Redevelopment of this property would create additional jobs
and would spur additional economic activity throughout South Kalispell
by becoming a destination location. The increase in additional traffic
would benefit existing businesses within the urban renewal area, however,
the City would need to plan for increased demand on City utilities such
as water, sewer, storm water and roadways. A traffic study would be
needed to assist with the future development of this area so that careful
consideration and planning are done regarding accessibility, walkability,
connectivity, infrastructure, and design.
Moreover, with the redevelopment option, the City would not have the
continued financial commitment of labor, operation and maintenance
costs, and capital reinvestment costs associated with the Airport.
60
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Land Use Alternative 1 Developable Area
Relocated Fairgrounds 8.6 Acres
Kalispell South High School 9.2 Acres
Relocated City Shops 1.8 Acres
Parking 28.4 Acres
Recreational Ball Fields 10.2 Acres
Figure 42: Land Use Alternative 1 for Airport Closure
1
April 2016
61
Figure 43: Land Use Alternative 2 for Airport Closure
Land Use Alternative 2 Developable Area
Multifamily Residential 9.3 Acres
Mixed Use Commercial/Residential 17.8 Acres
Light Industrial 23.2 Acres
Relocated City Shop Buildings 9.2 Acres
2
62
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
[Figure 44: Concept for a New T-Hangar Complex]
April 2016
63
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
South Kalispell is the beneficiary of one of the City’s Tax Increment
Finance Districts (TIF’s). The Kalispell City Airport/Athletic Complex and
Redevelopment Plan Analysis was originally adopted by Ordinance No.
1242 in July, 1996 setting the basis for the subsequent approval of a Tax
Increment Financing District. Subsequently, Ordinance No. 1260 amended
Ordinance 1242 and established January 1, 1996 as the base year for the
TIF. The primary goals associated with the original 1996 Urban Renewal
Plan and use of TIF monies still remain intact.
Specific goals include:
• Minimize hazards to navigation
• Develop the Airport in accordance with an airport layout plan
• Increase development opportunities on nearby properties
• Promote compatible land use in and around the Airport
• Establish funding mechanisms for airport operations
• Establish a priority schedule for plan implementation
Since the adoption of the 1996 Urban Renewal Plan and TIF, several of the
above goals have been addressed.
Resolution 4978 proposed to use tax increment finance district monies
in the amount of $1,900,000 for capital projects at the Airport using tax
increment urban renewal bonds.
These improvements included: purchase of land and improvements
currently owned by Red Eagle Aviation; construction of the northwest
ramp and taxiways; construction of the northwest utilities; construction
of an internal vehicle access road; purchase and installation of automatic
vehicle security gate. These projects were referred to as Phase I of the
Airport Master Plan.
Tax Increment Financing Projects
Ordinance No. 1541 in 2005, authorized a $2,000,000 urban renewal
revenue bond for the Airport projects listed in Resolution 4978 providing a
funding mechanism to complete the projects.
Resolution No. 5602 adopted in 2012 authorized the purchase of a
permanent easement and a 40 year lease on State of Montana School Trust
Lands annexing the land in to the City and allowing for the relocation of
youth athletic fields in the amount of $2,260,496.00.
Minimizing Hazards to Navigation
Ordinance No. 1745 adopted in October of 2014, focused on addressing
many of the navigational safety issues, including the establishment of
airport land use zones, height restrictions, airport runway protection zones,
use restrictions, administrative procedures, airport influence notification
zones, and enforcement.
In conjunction with Ordinance No. 1745, the City completed and adopted
a 2012 Master Plan for the Airport that included an Airport Layout Plan
and a variety of alternatives for FAA and Non-FAA compliance upgrades.
The failed referendum in 2013 precluded the City from accepting FAA
funding to bring the Airport into full FAA B2 Standard requirements and
subsequently has left the Airport again with an undecided future.
The current TIF expires July 1, 2020. It is recommended that the City look
into a new and expanded TIF district within the larger South Kalispell Urban
Renewal Area as a mechanism for future funding.
64
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
INCREASING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
OPPORTUNITIES
There has been an increase in development opportunities since the
adoption of the 1996 Urban Renewal Plan. The relocation of the ball fields
to KidsSports Complex allowed for the redevelopment of some of the
Airport’s commercial properties.
New development opportunities have included commercial development
such as Murdochs’, Hilton Garden Inn, Rosauers, and Penco. Located
directly on Highway 93 these improvements can spur additional economic
development within the planning area.
1990 2015
U
S
H
W
Y
9
3
U
S
H
W
Y
9
3
AI
R
P
O
R
T
R
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
R
D
CEMETERY RD CEMETERY RD
N N
Figure 45: 1990 and 2015 Aerial Imagery
Land developed between 1990 and 2015
April 2016
65
FINANCING METHODS
Funding for capital improvement projects has always been a complex and
competitive process. Needs always exceed available funds and priorities
must be set. It is important that the City leverage its funding using
creative grants, funding leverage, and public/private partnerships to help
implement the capital improvement projects in the Plan. The projects
listed in the Plan have been identified as the higher priority projects
supported by prior planning documents, growth policies, public input,
and best management planning practices. The goal of the project list is to
help spur economic development using smart growth planning policies
thereby increasing the livability of the community.
Tax Increment Financing
Tax Increment Financing Districts Title 7, Chapter 15, Parts 42 and 43,
Montana Code Annotated (MCA), are a way for government agencies to
collect revenue and facilitate needed improvements within a specifically
designated area. The Montana Urban Renewal Law requires the project
to be in an area of blight and that the urban renewal project is done in
conjunction with an urban renewal plan. Improving social welfare, public
safety, and public health by reinvesting into urban renewal projects are key
components in creating a successful TIF District. TIFD’s are 15 year financing
tools and can be leveraged with revenue bond financing.
http://www.leg.mt.gov/bills/mca_toc/7_15.htm
Industrial Development Bonds
Industrial Development Bonds (IDB’s), Title 90, Chapter 5, Part 1 MCA
provide an additional financing tool, although, not as commonly applied
and TIFD’s. IBD’s can promote industrial development without an undue
burden to the tax payer.
http://www.leg.mt.gov/bills/mca_toc/90_5.htm
General Obligation Bonds
General Obligation Bonds, Title 7, Chapter 15 Parts 4301 & 4302 MCA. These
bonds can be issued for water and sewer projects as well as urban renewal
projects and require voter approval.
http://www.leg.mt.gov/bills/mca_toc/7_15_43.htm
Private Financing
Private Financing can contribute significant capital infrastructure
improvements as properties develop. The ‘growth pays for growth’ policy
allows Cities to require new development to mitigate impacts to schools,
transportation systems, water, wastewater services, and environmental
impacts. Creating a consistent city standard for development within the
Urban Planning Area will provide opportunities as new properties develop.
Public/Private Partnerships
Public/Private Partnerships are another innovative way to leverage capital
reinvestment dollars. Developer agreements between public entities and
private development to upgrade, or further improvements can benefit
both the economy and the livability of the community.
State of Montana
Montana State Community Transportation Enhancement Grant is another
area of capital funding that is designed to increase multi-modal transpor-
tation methods and community walkability.
http://www.citiesthatwork.com/mdt/m1/ftools.shtml
Community Development Block Grants
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), administered by the
State of Montana, can be of assistance for communities that are focusing
improvements to benefit low to moderate incomes, create jobs, prevent
blight, redevelopment opportunities, and/or create new jobs. CDBG funds
again are best utilized in an urban renewal area and can be combined in
conjunction with other funding tools.
http://comdev.mt.gov/CDBG/cdbgplanninggrants.mcpx
66
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Federal Grant Administration
Federal grants can sometimes be leveraged with state grants and local
funds. Federal grants come with a number of grant assurances that
can make the application and administration of the grants somewhat
cumbersome but do provide a variety of opportunities for improvements.
Brownfield redevelopment, transportation, bike/pedestrian trail facilities
are good applications for federal granting sources.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is a funding source for general
aviation airports. The FAA funds airports throughout the state to assist
with keeping them in compliance with FAA safety regulations and
standards. General aviation airports are also able to receive annual Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) funding to assist with a programmed capital
improvement list.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/
acquisition/grants/?CFID=160792860&CFTOKEN=d322f3d7710aa530-53B06F86-
B9A5-BBAB-6E4CB7E06DAD7752&jsessionid=97F925109B87911252DD761738
F7DBBA.www
US Department of Agriculture offers rural business opportunity grant
program, rural economic development loan and grant and community
facilities grants.
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=GRANTS_LOANS
US Department of Commerce invest in Strong Cities, Strong Communities
Visioning Challenge as well as planning and local technical assistance
programs.
http://search.commerce.gov/search?query=grants&affiliate=commerce.
gov&submit.x=0&submit.y=0
The US Environmental Protection Agency supports the Brownsfields
Assessment Program; Brownfield Economic Development Initiative;
Brownfields and Lands Revitalization; building blocks for sustain
communities; smart growth technical assistance programs.
http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/
US Department of Health and Human Services offers the Community
Transportation Grants – Small Communities Program.
http://www.hhs.gov/grants/index.html
US Department of Housing and Urban Development assists with integrated
planning and investment planning grants.
http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/department-of-housing-and-urban-
development.shtml
Local Funding
Local Funding is always a mechanism to complete capital improvement
projects. Local funding can be generated through impact fees, tax increment
financing districts, resort and local option taxes, urban transportation
districts, parking benefit districts, and transportation utility fees. Local
funding is commonly used more for match requirements of other funding
agencies (grant sources) versus fully funding capital projects.
City/County Partnerships
City/County partnerships via Inter-Local Agreements are sometimes
used for capital projects that may cross jurisdictional boundaries or have
significant benefit or impact to each agency. Partnerships can include
water/wastewater utilities, transportation, bike/pedestrian projects, as
well as others.
April 2016
67
BROWNFIELDS
The term Brownfield Site applies to real property that may be compromised
and unable to develop due to the perceived or real presence of a hazardous
substance, pollutant, or contaminant. If eligible, federal funding may be
available to conduct an environmental assessment which identifies the
contaminant and extent of contamination on these sites.
The City of Kalispell has been proactive in creating a successful Brownfields
program and in the past has been awarded Brownfield funding for
community wide assessments and clean up. There are potential properties
within South Kalispell that may benefit from this program. The City is
a willing partner in this process and can work with concerned property
owners or developers that may be interested in this program. Reinvesting in
Brownfield properties is another way to spur economic vitality. Developers
are more interested in reinvestment and community members are more
apt to spend their time and resources within an area that has been
redeveloped with Brownfield dollars. TIFD funding can also be utilized to
leverage Brownfield development projects.
During construction
After
Figure 46: Starbucks Brownfields Project
It is recommended that the City encourage Brownfield applications
within the South Kalispell Urban Renewal District and encourage the use
of TIF funding as an opportunity for Brownfield reinvestment projects.
The site below in Figure 46, formerly a service station and a parking lot,
was redeveloped into a Starbucks near the Kalispell Center Mall using
Brownfield redevelopment funds.
68
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal PlanAAIRPORT ALTERNATIVES DETAILED FINANCIAL TABLES AND PRO-FORMAS
APPENDIX A
Alternative 1 Pro Forma
January 2016
71
AAIRPORT ALTERNATIVES DETAILED FINANCIAL TABLES AND PRO-FORMAS
APPENDIX A
Category Revenues 93,200$ Δ % of Rev 90,800$ Δ % of Rev 125,520$ Δ % of Rev 139,960$ Δ % of Rev 153,340$ Δ % of Rev 170,860$ Δ % of Rev
Rents and Fees Comercial Fees 13,400$ 1% 14% 14,800$ 10% 16% 16,300$ 10% 13% 18,000$ 10% 13% 19,800$ 10% 13% 21,800$ 10% 13%
Rents and Fees Tie Down Fees 600$ -22% 1% 800$ 33% 1% 800$ 0% 1% 800$ 0% 1% 800$ 0% 1% 800$ 0% 0%
Rents and Fees Hangar Leases 12,000$ 4% 13% 11,600$ -3% 13% 11,500$ -1% 9% 17,600$ 53% 13% 24,700$ 40% 16% 35,260$ 43% 21%
Rents and Fees Hangar Site Leases 24,100$ 38% 26% 18,800$ -22% 21% 21,420$ 14% 17% 26,360$ 23% 19% 29,140$ 11% 19% 32,300$ 11% 19%
Rents and Fees FBO Lease 17,900$ 0% 19% 18,300$ 2% 20% 18,600$ 2% 15% 18,900$ 2% 14% 19,200$ 2% 13% 19,600$ 2% 11%
Rents and Fees Ground Leases 16,600$ 37% 18% 17,000$ 2% 19% 47,400$ 179% 38% 48,800$ 3% 35% 50,200$ 3% 33% 51,600$ 3% 30%
Rents and Fees Fuel Tax 4,800$ -15% 5% 5,700$ 19% 6% 5,700$ 0% 5% 5,700$ 0% 4% 5,700$ 0% 4% 5,700$ 0% 3%
Grants FAA Airport Improvement Program -$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%
Grants Contribution from Local Gov. Fund -$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%
Misc. Earnings Investment Earnings 900$ 39% 1% 900$ 0% 1% 900$ 0% 1% 900$ 0% 1% 900$ 0% 1% 900$ 0% 1%
Misc. Earnings Misc. Earnings 2,900$ 0% 3% 2,900$ 0% 3% 2,900$ 0% 2% 2,900$ 0% 2% 2,900$ 0% 2% 2,900$ 0% 2%
Expenses 179,195$ Δ % of Exp 227,800$ Δ % of Exp 622,294$ Δ % of Exp 557,342$ Δ % of Exp 660,586$ Δ % of Exp 327,000$ Δ % of Exp
Salaries and Benefits Salaries - Full Time -$ -100% 0% 55,000$ 0% 24% 56,000$ 2% 9% 57,000$ 2% 10% 58,000$ 2% 9% 59,000$ 2% 18%
Salaries and Benefits Salaries - Seasonal 1,600$ 50% 1% 1,700$ 6% 1% 1,800$ 6% 0% 2,000$ 11% 0% 2,200$ 10% 0% 2,500$ 14% 1%
Salaries and Benefits Health Insurance -$ -100% 0% 10,000$ 0% 4% 12,500$ 25% 2% 15,600$ 25% 3% 19,500$ 25% 3% 24,400$ 25% 7%
Salaries and Benefits Retirement -$ -100% 0% 4,000$ 0% 2% 4,500$ 13% 1% 5,000$ 11% 1% 5,500$ 10% 1% 6,200$ 13% 2%
Salaries and Benefits Travel, Dues, and Training -$ -100% 0% 800$ 0% 0% 800$ 0% 0% 800$ 0% 0% 800$ 0% 0% 900$ 13% 0%
Equipment and Supplies Office Supplies -$ -100% 0% 500$ 0% 0% 1,300$ 160% 0% 1,400$ 8% 0% 1,600$ 14% 0% 1,800$ 13% 1%
Equipment and Supplies Electricity 1,900$ 3% 1% 2,100$ 11% 1% 2,300$ 10% 0% 2,500$ 9% 0% 2,700$ 8% 0% 3,000$ 11% 1%
Equipment and Supplies Telephone -$ -100% 0% 800$ 0% 0% 800$ 0% 0% 800$ 0% 0% 800$ 0% 0% 800$ 0% 0%
Equipment and Supplies Equipment Rental 800$ -46% 0% 1,800$ 125% 1% 1,900$ 6% 0% 2,100$ 11% 0% 2,400$ 14% 0% 2,700$ 13% 1%
Contract Services CS-Labor+Materials 36,000$ 89% 20% 8,500$ -76% 4% 9,000$ 6% 1% 9,800$ 9% 2% 10,800$ 10% 2% 12,200$ 13% 4%
Contract Services CS-Snow 5,395$ 6% 3% 5,500$ 2% 2% 5,800$ 5% 1% 6,300$ 9% 1% 7,000$ 11% 1% 7,900$ 13% 2%
Contract Services CS-Legal 21,300$ 526% 12% 21,700$ 2% 10% 22,800$ 5% 4% 24,600$ 8% 4% 27,000$ 10% 4% 30,300$ 12% 9%
Contract Services Equipment Mantenance 1,500$ 434% 1% 7,900$ 427% 3% 8,300$ 5% 1% 9,000$ 8% 2% 9,900$ 10% 1% 11,100$ 12% 3%
Contract Services Property Insurance 8,600$ -31% 5% 6,700$ -22% 3% 7,100$ 6% 1% 7,700$ 8% 1% 8,500$ 10% 1% 9,600$ 13% 3%
Government Transfer Maintenance by Public Works -$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%
Government Transfer Administrative Transfer 1,500$ -65% 1% 3,000$ 100% 1% 2,900$ -3% 0% 2,300$ -21% 0% 1,800$ -22% 0% 1,500$ -17% 0%
Government Transfer Data Processing Transfer 5,500$ 51% 3% 3,800$ -31% 2% 5,800$ 53% 1% 7,300$ 26% 1% 9,000$ 23% 1% 11,400$ 27% 3%
Depreciation Depreciation 95,100$ -1% 53% 94,000$ -1% 41% 91,900$ -2% 15% 91,900$ 0% 16% 90,800$ -1% 14% 85,700$ -6% 26%
Construction Construction-In-Progress -$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0% 386,794$ 0% 62% 311,242$ -20% 56% 402,286$ 29% 61% 56,000$ -86% 17%
Net Revenue (Loss) - Accounting (85,995)$ (137,000)$ (496,774)$ (417,382)$ (507,246)$ (156,140)$
Net Revenue (Loss) - Cash Flow 9,105$ (43,000)$ (404,874)$ (325,482)$ (416,446)$ (70,440)$
2016 2017 2018 2019 20202015
A ltern ative 1 Pro Fo rm a
Alternative 1 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Operating Revenues (+)93,200 90,800 125,520 139,960 153,340 170,860
Operating Expenses (Except Depreciation) (-)84,095 133,800 143,600 154,200 167,500 185,300
Capital Expenses (-)0 0 386,794 311,242 402,286 56,000
Surplus (Shortfall)9,105 (43,000) (404,874) (325,482) (416,446) (70,440)
36
Alternative 1 Pro Forma
April 2016
69
Alternative 2 Pro Forma
Alternative 2 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Operating Revenues (+) 93,200 82,175 829,565 1,290,595 1,465,450 1,302,500
Operating Expenses (-) 84,095 147,900 179,100 186,400 57,900 36,000
Capital Expenses (-) 0 0 756,550 1,255,200 1,242,400 649,850
Surplus (Shortfall) 9,105 (65,725) (106,085) (151,005) 165,150 616,650
Revenues 93,200$ Δ % of Rev 82,175$ Δ % of Rev 829,565$ Δ % of Rev 1,290,595$ Δ % of Rev 1,465,450$ Δ % of Rev 1,302,500$ Δ % of Rev
Comercial Fees 13,400$ 1% 14% 14,800$ 10% 18% 16,300$ 10% 2% 17,900$ 10% 1% 19,700$ 10% 1%-$ -100% 0%
Tie Down Fees 600$ -22% 1% 450$ -25% 1% 330$ -27% 0% 90$ -73% 0%-$ -100% 0%-$ 0% 0%
Hangar Leases 12,000$ 4% 13% 9,000$ -25% 11% 6,600$ -27% 1% 1,800$ -73% 0%-$ -100% 0%-$ 0% 0%
Hangar Site Leases 24,100$ 38% 26% 18,075$ -25% 22% 13,255$ -27% 2% 3,615$ -73% 0%-$ -100% 0%-$ 0% 0%
FBO Lease 17,900$ 0% 19% 17,900$ 0% 22% 17,900$ 0% 2%-$ -100% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%
Ground Leases 16,600$ 37% 18% 12,450$ -25% 15% 9,130$ -27% 1% 2,490$ -73% 0%-$ -100% 0%-$ 0% 0%
Fuel Tax 4,800$ -15% 5% 5,700$ 19% 7% 5,700$ 0% 1% 5,700$ 0% 0%-$ -100% 0%-$ 0% 0%
FAA Airport Improvement Program -$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%
Contribution from Local Gov. Fund -$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%
Investment Earnings 900$ 39% 1% 900$ 0% 1% 900$ 0% 0% 900$ 0% 0%-$ -100% 0%-$ 0% 0%
Misc. Earnings 2,900$ 0% 3% 2,900$ 0% 4% 759,450$ 26088% 92% 1,258,100$ 66% 97% 1,445,750$ 15% 99% 1,302,500$ -10% 100%
Expenses 179,195$ Δ % of Exp 241,900$ Δ % of Exp 1,028,550$ Δ % of Exp 1,533,500$ Δ % of Exp 1,391,100$ Δ % of Exp 685,850$ Δ % of Exp
Salaries - Full Time -$ -100% 0% 45,000$ 0% 19% 46,000$ 2% 4% 47,000$ 2% 3%-100% 0%0% 0%
Salaries - Seasonal 1,600$ 50% 1% 1,700$ 6% 1% 1,800$ 6% 0% 2,000$ 11% 0%-$ -100% 0%-$ 0% 0%
Health Insurance -$ -100% 0% 8,200$ 0% 3% 10,300$ 26% 1% 12,900$ 25% 1%-$ -100% 0%-$ 0% 0%
Retirement -$ -100% 0% 3,300$ 0% 1% 3,700$ 12% 0% 4,100$ 11% 0%-$ -100% 0%-$ 0% 0%
Travel -$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%
Dues and Training -$ -100% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%
Office Supplies -$ -100% 0% 500$ 0% 0% 800$ 60% 0% 400$ -50% 0%-$ -100% 0%-$ 0% 0%
Electricity 1,900$ 3% 1% 2,100$ 11% 1% 2,300$ 10% 0% 2,500$ 9% 0%-$ -100% 0%-$ 0% 0%
Telephone -$ -100% 0% 800$ 0% 0% 800$ 0% 0% 800$ 0% 0%-$ -100% 0%-$ 0% 0%
Equipment Rental 800$ -46% 0% 1,800$ 125% 1% 1,500$ -17% 0% 1,000$ -33% 0% 400$ -60% 0%-$ -100% 0%
CS-Labor+Materials 36,000$ 89% 20% 36,600$ 2% 15% 29,700$ -19% 3% 18,300$ -38% 1% 5,800$ -68% 0%-$ -100% 0%
CS-Snow 5,395$ 6% 3% 5,500$ 2% 2% 4,500$ -18% 0% 2,800$ -38% 0%-$ -100% 0%-$ 0% 0%
CS-Legal 21,300$ 526% 12% 21,700$ 2% 9% 28,700$ 32% 3% 34,500$ 20% 2% 31,100$ -10% 2% 28,000$ -10% 4%
Equipment Mantenance 1,500$ 434% 1% 7,900$ 427% 3% 6,400$ -19% 1% 5,500$ -14% 0% 4,200$ -24% 0%-$ -100% 0%
Property Insurance 8,600$ -31% 5% 6,700$ -22% 3% 6,900$ 3% 1% 7,500$ 9% 0% 7,500$ 0% 1%-$ -100% 0%
Maintenance by Public Works -$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%
Administrative Transfer 1,500$ -65% 1% 2,700$ 80% 1% 19,100$ 607% 2% 21,200$ 11% 1% 7,400$ -65% 1% 6,600$ -11% 1%
Data Processing Transfer 5,500$ 51% 3% 3,400$ -38% 1% 16,600$ 388% 2% 25,900$ 56% 2% 1,500$ -94% 0% 1,400$ -7% 0%
Depreciation 95,100$ -1% 53% 94,000$ -1% 39% 92,900$ -1% 9% 91,900$ -1% 6% 90,800$ -1% 7%-$ -100% 0%
Construction-In-Progress -$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0% 5,000$ 0% 0%-$ -100% 0%
Closure Costs -$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0% 756,550$ 0% 74% 1,255,200$ 66% 82% 1,237,400$ -1% 89% 649,850$ -47% 95%
Net Revenue (Loss) - Accounting (85,995)$ (159,725)$ (198,985)$ (242,905)$ 74,350$ 616,650$
Net Revenue (Loss) - Cash Flow 9,105$ (65,725)$ (106,085)$ (151,005)$ 165,150$ 616,650$
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
70
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Another alternative suggested during the public outreach process was one
that would re-engage the FAA in the Airport’s future. This proposal would
involve using FAA funding for improvement projects to bring the Airport
into compliance with FAA design standards. The Airport will remain in its
existing location, with the same runway configuration and alignment. The
feasibility and success of Alternative 3 depends on FAA willingness to fund
the necessary improvement projects. In the early stages of this project,
FAA staff at the Helena Airport District Office were contacted about the
possibility of re-involvement with the Kalispell City Airport. The FAA said
that it is still possible for the City to become eligible for and receive FAA
funds. A re-validation analysis and discussion would be required between
the City and the FAA but the possibility is not off the table. Alternative 3 will
implement the airfield development plan “Site 1 – Option D” from the 2012
Final Airport Master Plan Update. A graphic of the project components is
located at the end of this document. Project components included in the
2012 Final Airport Master Plan Update are as follows:
• Airport facilities constructed to Airport Reference Code (ARC)
B-I design standards (60 feet runway width, 150 feet separation
between runway and taxiway, 25 feet wide taxiways).
• Runway reconstructed to its current length of 3,700 feet but could be
extended to a length of 4,300 feet.
• No shift or offset of runway centerline.
• No rotation, orientation remains 13/31.
• Requires the relocation of five hangars and three shops on Airport
property.
• Requires the full or partial acquisition of approximately 16 land
parcels (no residential).
Alternative 3 assumes that the City and FAA investment will make the
Airport an attractive location for private developers, which will increase
airport ground lease revenue. The City will not develop hangars because of
the cost, slow payback period, and low rate of return (and potential loss),
The Airport Reference Code (ARC)
has two components relating to
the Airport design aircraft. The first
component, depicted by a letter, is
the aircraft approach category
and relates to aircraft approach
speed (operational characteristic).
The second component, depicted
by a Roman numeral, is the
airplane design group and relates
to airplane wingspan or tail
height (physical characteristics),
whichever is the most restrictive.
Alternative 3- FAA Compliant Airport in Current Runway Alignment but instead continue to lease property
to private developers as in Alternative
1. It is expected that private developers
will have lower overhead costs and be
able to more efficiently and flexibly
manage leases, set lease rates, and keep
hangars full while returning a profit.
Considering that Alternative 3 involves
FAA funds, there are political concerns
which are not as pronounced in
Alternatives 1 and 2. The City will have
to determine if accepting FAA funds (in
a more limited role than the previous
Master Plan project) and operating
in accordance with FAA grant obligations is something that would be
acceptable to the public. The general public voted against this approach
in 2013; therefore, the City will need to provide additional documentation
that supports this approach.
Fiscal Impacts: Although 90% of this alternative would be funded through
FAA Airport Improvement Program grant funds, the City would still be
responsible for the “matching” 10%. Some of these funds could come
from the TIF (for development projects) while maintenance projects are
ineligible for TIF funding. Additional expenses would likely be incurred for
a coordination/planning effort (updated Airport Layout Plan) to determine
a course of action with FAA.
If the Airport becomes eligible for FAA funding, it will receive $150,000 per
year in FAA Entitlement Funds to support capital improvement projects.
The FAA will fund 90% of major future capital projects, such as a runway
reconstruction or overlay, with these entitlement funds, and will provide
additional “discretionary” funds when deemed appropriate and necessary.
Discretionary funds are only provided when available, and when entitlement
funds are fully used. Capital expenses are lower than Alternatives 1 and 2
because the FAA would fund the majority of capital projects 13. A five year
pro-forma analysis, capital costs, and detailed revenues and expenses in
this Appendix.
ALTERNATIVE 3
April 2016
71
Figure A3: Alternative 3 Capital Costs and Resulting Revenues
Figure A2: Alternative 3 Comparison to Baseline
[Figure 27: Alternative 3 Revenue and Expense Sum m ary]
Alternative 3 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Operating Revenues (+)98,800 228,020 290,460 223,340 220,860
Operating Expenses (Except Depreciation) (-)142,400 166,700 229,100 173,300 189,500
Capital Expenses (-)102,294 118,624 110,119 106,000
Surplus (Shortfall)(43,600) (40,974) (57,264) (60,079) (74,640)
A s w ith A lte rn a tiv e 1 , th e lo n g -te rm c a sh fl o w s a re h ig h ly v a ria b le d e p e n d in g o n w h a t d isc o u n t ra te is
used and future valuation is contingent on private investm ent in hangars. Using the 7% discount rate
fo r p u rp o se s o f c o m p a riso n , A lte rn a tiv e 3 is v a lu e d a t $ 4 0 0 ,0 0 0 in 2 0 1 5 d o lla rs (se e Figure 28). T h e
N P V o f c o n stru c tio n in v e stm e n ts is $ 4 0 0 ,0 0 0 in 2 0 1 5 d o lla rs; a n d A lte rn a tiv e 3 p ro d u c e s a n e v e n
retu rn o n in vestm en t.
[Figure 28: Alternative 3 Com parison to Baseline]
Net Present Value (2015 $, 7% Rate)DCFA
Alternative 5 Year Cash Flows Ongoing Income Valuation
Baseline ($890,729) ($471,240) ($1,361,969)
3 ($200,000)$600,000 $400,000
Difference $690,729 $1,071,240 $1,761,969
A lte rn a tiv e 3 re p a irs th e a irfi e ld a n d m a in ta in s it sim ila r to A lte rn a tiv e 1 , th e m a jo r d iff e re n c e b e tw e e n
th e se tw o a lte rn a tiv e s is th a t th e C ity m u st b e a r m o re o f th e c a p ita l c o sts in A lte rn a tiv e 1 d u e to th e
a b se n c e o f FA A fu n d in g a n d b e c a u se p ro je c ts a re in e lig ib le fo r T IF fu n d in g . F o r th is re a so n , th e sc a le o f
im p ro v e m e n t p ro je c ts is le ss in A lte rn a tiv e 1 th a n in A lte rn a tiv e 3 . A c o m p a riso n is p re se n te d in
Appendix A.
A v ia tio n Im p a c ts: T h is a lte rn a tiv e w o u ld p ro v id e th e b e st o u tc o m e fro m a n a v ia tio n p e rsp e c tiv e .
A n y th in g th a t m o v e s th e A irp o rt c lo se r to fu ll c o m p lia n c e w ith FA A sta n d a rd s is b e n e fi c ia l.
Community Impacts: A lte rn a tiv e 3 c o n tin u e s to p ro v id e th e c o m m u n ity w ith a n a v ia tio n fa c ility , a n d
ta k e s a d v a n ta g e o f FA A fu n d in g to re d u c e th e lo c a l sh a re o f im p ro v e m e n t p ro je c ts. R e v e n u e -
producing im provem ents, including hangars, are not eligible for FAA funding; however, these projects
c a n b e se e n a s a n in v e stm e n t to m a k e th e A irp o rt m o re fi n a n c ia lly su sta in a b le in th e fu tu re , a n d m o st
o f th e e x p e n se o f b u ild in g th e se fa c ilitie s w ill b e b o rn e b y th e p riv a te se c to r. S h o rt-te rm c o m m u n ity
im p acts in clu d e co n stru ctio n jo b s an d m aterial sales th at su p p o rt co n stru ctio n ; an d lo n g er term
im p a c ts in c lu d e le ss re lia n c e b y th e A irp o rt o n th e C ity ’s g e n e ra l fu n d , w h ic h fre e s u p m o n e y fo r o th e r
C ity p ro g ram s.
28
[Figure 27: Alternative 3 Revenue and Expense Sum m ary]
Alternative 3 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Operating Revenues (+)98,800 228,020 290,460 223,340 220,860
Operating Expenses (Except Depreciation) (-)142,400 166,700 229,100 173,300 189,500
Capital Expenses (-)102,294 118,624 110,119 106,000
Surplus (Shortfall)(43,600) (40,974) (57,264) (60,079) (74,640)
A s w ith A lte rn a tiv e 1 , th e lo n g -te rm c a sh fl o w s a re h ig h ly v a ria b le d e p e n d in g o n w h a t d isc o u n t ra te is
used and future valuation is contingent on private investm ent in hangars. Using the 7% discount rate
fo r p u rp o se s o f c o m p a riso n , A lte rn a tiv e 3 is v a lu e d a t $ 4 0 0 ,0 0 0 in 2 0 1 5 d o lla rs (se e Figure 28). T h e
N P V o f c o n stru c tio n in v e stm e n ts is $ 4 0 0 ,0 0 0 in 2 0 1 5 d o lla rs; a n d A lte rn a tiv e 3 p ro d u c e s a n e v e n
retu rn o n in vestm en t.
[Figure 28: Alternative 3 Com parison to Baseline]
Net Present Value (2015 $, 7% Rate)DCFA
Alternative 5 Year Cash Flows Ongoing Income Valuation
Baseline ($890,729) ($471,240) ($1,361,969)
3 ($200,000)$600,000 $400,000
Difference $690,729 $1,071,240 $1,761,969
A lte rn a tiv e 3 re p a irs th e a irfi e ld a n d m a in ta in s it sim ila r to A lte rn a tiv e 1 , th e m a jo r d iff e re n c e b e tw e e n
th e se tw o a lte rn a tiv e s is th a t th e C ity m u st b e a r m o re o f th e c a p ita l c o sts in A lte rn a tiv e 1 d u e to th e
a b se n c e o f FA A fu n d in g a n d b e c a u se p ro je c ts a re in e lig ib le fo r T IF fu n d in g . F o r th is re a so n , th e sc a le o f
im p ro v e m e n t p ro je c ts is le ss in A lte rn a tiv e 1 th a n in A lte rn a tiv e 3 . A c o m p a riso n is p re se n te d in
Appendix A.
A v ia tio n Im p a c ts: T h is a lte rn a tiv e w o u ld p ro v id e th e b e st o u tc o m e fro m a n a v ia tio n p e rsp e c tiv e .
A n y th in g th a t m o v e s th e A irp o rt c lo se r to fu ll c o m p lia n c e w ith FA A sta n d a rd s is b e n e fi c ia l.
Community Impacts: A lte rn a tiv e 3 c o n tin u e s to p ro v id e th e c o m m u n ity w ith a n a v ia tio n fa c ility , a n d
ta k e s a d v a n ta g e o f FA A fu n d in g to re d u c e th e lo c a l sh a re o f im p ro v e m e n t p ro je c ts. R e v e n u e -
producing im provem ents, including hangars, are not eligible for FAA funding; however, these projects
c a n b e se e n a s a n in v e stm e n t to m a k e th e A irp o rt m o re fi n a n c ia lly su sta in a b le in th e fu tu re , a n d m o st
o f th e e x p e n se o f b u ild in g th e se fa c ilitie s w ill b e b o rn e b y th e p riv a te se c to r. S h o rt-te rm c o m m u n ity
im p acts in clu d e co n stru ctio n jo b s an d m aterial sales th at su p p o rt co n stru ctio n ; an d lo n g er term
im p a c ts in c lu d e le ss re lia n c e b y th e A irp o rt o n th e C ity ’s g e n e ra l fu n d , w h ic h fre e s u p m o n e y fo r o th e r
C ity p ro g ram s.
28
Fiscal Im pacts: A lth o u g h 9 0 % o f th is a lte rn a tiv e w o u ld b e fu n d e d th ro u g h FA A A irp o rt Im p ro v e m e n t P ro g ra m g ra n t fu n d s, th e C ity w o u ld still b e re sp o n sib le fo r th e “m a tc h in g ” 1 0 % . S o m e o f th e se fu n d s could com e from the TIF (for developm ent projects) w hile m aintenance projects are ineligible for TIF fu n d in g . A d d itio n a l e x p e n se s w o u ld lik e ly b e in c u rre d fo r a c o o rd in a tio n /p la n n in g e ff o rt (u p d a te d A irp o rt L a y o u t P la n ) to d e te rm in e a c o u rse o f a c tio n w ith FA A . If th e A irp o rt b e c o m e s e lig ib le fo r FA A fu n d in g , it w ill re c e iv e $ 1 5 0 ,0 0 0 p e r y e a r in FA A E n title m e n t F u n d s to su p p o rt c a p ita l im p ro v e m e n t p ro je c ts. T h e FA A w ill fu n d 9 0 % o f m a jo r fu tu re c a p ita l p ro je c ts,su c h a s a ru n w a y re c o n stru c tio n o r o v e rla y , w ith th e se e n title m e n t fu n d s, a n d w ill p ro v id e a d d itio n a l “d isc re tio n a ry ” fu n d s w h e n d e e m e d a p p ro p ria te a n d n e c e ssa ry . D isc re tio n a ry fu n d s a re o n ly p ro v id e d w h e n a v a ila b le , a n d w h e n e n title m e n t fu n d s a re fu lly u se d . C a p ita l e x p e n se s a re lo w e r th a n
A lte rn a tiv e s 1 a n d 2 b e c a u se th e FA A w o u ld fu n d th e m a jo rity o f c a p ita l p ro je c ts
13. A fi v e y e a r p ro -
fo rm a a n a ly sis, c a p ita l c o sts, a n d d e ta ile d re v e n u e s a n d e x p e n se s a re in c lu d e d in A p p e n d ix A .
A D C FA fo r A lte rn a tiv e 3 p ro v id e s in sig h t o n N P V o f fi v e y e a r c o sts a n d re v e n u e s, a n d e x p e c te d lo n g -
te rm fi n a n c ia l g a in . T h is D C FA u se s th e sa m e 7 % d isc o u n t ra te a s A lte rn a tiv e s 1 a n d 2 a n d th e sa m e 2 %
g ro w th ra te o f p o sitiv e c a sh fl o w s a s A lte rn a tiv e 1 . T h e D C FA fo r A lte rn a tiv e 3 is p re se n te d in A p p e n d ix
A.
[Figure 26: Alternative 3 Capital Costs and Resulting Revenues]
Alternative 3
Revenues 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
T-Hangar Lease Revenue 0 0 6,000 13,200 23,760 42,960
Hangar Site Leases 1,200 4,120 8,760 11,840 15,000 40,920
Ground Leases 0 30,000 31,000 32,000 33,000 126,000
TIF Funds for Capital Projects 8,000 102,500 150,500 70,000 50,000 381,000
Revenues 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total TIF
Update ALP 8,000 0 0 0 0 8,000 Yes
Land Purchase, Obstruction Removal 0 87,500 87,500 0 0 175,000 Yes
Environmental Permitting 0 15,000 15,000 0 0 30,000 Yes
Design 0 0 48,000 0 0 48,000 Yes
North Fuel Island Overlay 0 0 1,428 0 0 1,428 No
Main Hangar Taxiway Overlay 0 0 4,145 0 0 4,145 No
Airport Road Overlay 0 0 0 0 56,000 56,000 No
Road and Parking Lot Crack Seal 0 14,794 0 0 0 14,794 No
Ryan Lane Overlay 0 0 0 40,119 0 40,119 No
West Taxiway Overlay 0 0 25,552 0 0 25,552 No
Runway Rehabilitation 0 0 0 70,000 0 70,000 Yes
East Taxiway Reconstruction 0 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 Yes
C a p ita l c o sts th a t a re e lig ib le fo r F A A fu n d in g a re liste d a t 1 0 % o f th e ir c a p ita l c o sts. It is a ssu m e d th a t th e
FA A w ill fu n d e lig ib le im p ro v e m e n ts a t 9 0 % .
27
Capital Expenses
A DCFA for Alternative 3 provides insight on NPV of five year costs and
revenues, and expected long-term financial gain. This DCFA uses the same
7% discount rate as Alternatives 1 and 2 and the same 2% growth rate of
positive cash flows as Alternative 1.
As with Alternative 1, the long-term cash flows are highly variable
depending on what discount rate is used and future valuation is contingent
on private investment in hangars. Using the 7% discount rate for purposes
of comparison, Alternative 3 is valued at $400,000 in 2015 dollars (see
Figure A1). The NPV of construction investments is $400,000 in 2015
dollars; and Alternative 3 produces an even return on investment.
Alternative 3 repairs the airfield and maintains it similar to Alternative 1,
the major difference between these two alternatives is that the City must
bear more of the capital costs in Alternative 1 due to the absence of FAA
funding and because projects are ineligible for TIF funding. For this reason,
the scale of improvement projects is less in Alternative 1 than in Alternative
3. A comparison is presented in Figure A2.
Aviation Impacts: This alternative would provide the best outcome from
an aviation perspective. Anything that moves the Airport closer to full
compliance with FAA standards is beneficial.
Community Impacts: Alternative 3 continues to provide the community
with an aviation facility, and takes advantage of FAA funding to reduce the
local share of improvement projects. Revenue-producing improvements,
including hangars, are not eligible for FAA funding; however, these
projects can be seen as an investment to make the Airport more financially
sustainable in the future, and most of the expense of building these facilities
will be borne by the private sector. Short-term community impacts include
construction jobs and material sales that support construction; and longer
term impacts include less reliance by the Airport on the City’s general fund,
which frees up money for other City programs.
Figure A1: Alternative 3 Revenue and Expense Summary
72
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Findings for Alternative 3 - Request FAA funds for Airport Improvements
in Current Runway Alignment – If the City has the political willingness to
pursue Alternative 3, it would be the recommended course of action. The
City could choose to proceed with this alternative, and if an agreement
cannot be reached with the FAA, the City can revert to Alternative 1.
The downside of this approach would be the potential for more time to
pass without a clear direction for the Airport, and completion of high
priority maintenance projects.
Alternative 3 – Action Plan
Should the City decide to move forward with Alternative 3, the following
steps should be taken:
1. 1City representatives organize and attend a meeting with FAA
representatives to discuss potential for project.
2. With FAA agreement, prepare an updated ALP and CIP.
3. Coordinate with FAA on timing on process moving forward.
[F ig u re 3 0 : A lte rn a tiv e S u m m a ry ]
A ltern ative
C ap ital C o sts
5 Year Cash
F lo w s
Ongoing
In c o m e
D CFA
Valuation
Benefits D raw b acks
A ltern ative 1
$900,000 ($1,000,000) ($300,000) (1,300,000)
P ro v id e s sa fe , e ffi c ie n t a irp o rt
G re a te r fl e x ib ility if c lo su re so u g h t
in long-term
C ity in v e stm e n t m a y in sp ire p riv a te
investm ent
D o e s n o t m e e t FA A sta n d a rd s
C ity m u st se lf-fu n d fu tu re c a p ita l
im provem ents and m aintenance
N o t e lig ib le fo r T IF fu n d s
A ltern ative 2
$2,900,000 $400,000 $0 $400,000
A b ility to re u se site fo r p o te n tia l
greater econom ic benefit
P o te n tia l fo r C ity to p ro fi t in ste a d o f
o p e ra tin g fa c ility a t a lo ss
O th e r fa c ilitie s in a re a to ta k e
displaced users
A b le to u se T IF fu n d s
Considerable up-front financial
investm ent
L o ss o f a v ia tio n fa c ility a n d
association em ergency
m anagem ent / disaster relief
benefits
M any unknowns about future
revenue potential
A ltern ative 3
$400,000 ($200,000)$400,000 $400,000
P ro v id e s sa fe , e ffi c ie n t a irp o rt
L o w e r c a p ita l c o sts d u e to FA A
fu n d s
Ongoing FAA entitlem ent funding
A b le to u se T IF fu n d s fo r so m e
p ro je c ts
C ity a n d FA A in v e stm e n t m a y
in sp ire p riv a te in v e stm e n t
L o ss o f fl e x ib ility if c lo su re so u g h t in
long-term
M ore substantial capital
im provem ents needed to m eet FAA
standards
Contrary to voter decision
A irp o rt w ill c o n tin u e to lo se m o n e y
N o te : C a p ita l c o sts a re fa c to re d in to 5 Y e a r C a sh F lo w s, a lo n g w ith o p e ra tin g re v e n u e s a n d o p e ra tin g e x p e n se s.
D C FA V a lu a tio n = 5 Y e a r C a sh F lo w s + O n g o in g In c o m e
34
[F ig u re 3 0 : A lte rn a tiv e S u m m a ry ]
A ltern ative
C ap ital C o sts
5 Year Cash
F lo w s
Ongoing
In c o m e
D CFA
Valuation
Benefits D raw b acks
A ltern ative 1
$900,000 ($1,000,000) ($300,000) (1,300,000)
P ro v id e s sa fe , e ffi c ie n t a irp o rt
G re a te r fl e x ib ility if c lo su re so u g h t
in long-term
C ity in v e stm e n t m a y in sp ire p riv a te
investm ent
D o e s n o t m e e t FA A sta n d a rd s
C ity m u st se lf-fu n d fu tu re c a p ita l
im provem ents and m aintenance
N o t e lig ib le fo r T IF fu n d s
A ltern ative 2
$2,900,000 $400,000 $0 $400,000
A b ility to re u se site fo r p o te n tia l
greater econom ic benefit
P o te n tia l fo r C ity to p ro fi t in ste a d o f
o p e ra tin g fa c ility a t a lo ss
O th e r fa c ilitie s in a re a to ta k e
displaced users
A b le to u se T IF fu n d s
Considerable up-front financial
investm ent
L o ss o f a v ia tio n fa c ility a n d
association em ergency
m anagem ent / disaster relief
benefits
M any unknowns about future
revenue potential
A ltern ative 3
$400,000 ($200,000)$400,000 $400,000
P ro v id e s sa fe , e ffi c ie n t a irp o rt
L o w e r c a p ita l c o sts d u e to FA A
fu n d s
Ongoing FAA entitlem ent funding
A b le to u se T IF fu n d s fo r so m e
p ro je c ts
C ity a n d FA A in v e stm e n t m a y
in sp ire p riv a te in v e stm e n t
L o ss o f fl e x ib ility if c lo su re so u g h t in
long-term
M ore substantial capital
im provem ents needed to m eet FAA
standards
Contrary to voter decision
A irp o rt w ill c o n tin u e to lo se m o n e y
N o te : C a p ita l c o sts a re fa c to re d in to 5 Y e a r C a sh F lo w s, a lo n g w ith o p e ra tin g re v e n u e s a n d o p e ra tin g e x p e n se s.
D C FA V a lu a tio n = 5 Y e a r C a sh F lo w s + O n g o in g In c o m e
34
April 2016
73
Alternative 3 Pro Forma
January 2016
73
Category Revenues 93,200$ Δ % of Rev 98,800$ Δ % of Rev 228,020$ Δ % of Rev 290,460$ Δ % of Rev 223,340$ Δ % of Rev 220,860$ Δ % of Rev
Rents and Fees Comercial Fees 13,400$ 1% 14% 14,800$ 10% 15% 16,300$ 10% 7% 18,000$ 10% 6% 19,800$ 10% 9% 21,800$ 10% 10%
Rents and Fees Tie Down Fees 600$ -22% 1% 800$ 33% 1% 800$ 0% 0% 800$ 0% 0% 800$ 0% 0% 800$ 0% 0%
Rents and Fees Hangar Leases 12,000$ 4% 13% 11,600$ -3% 12% 11,500$ -1% 5% 17,600$ 53% 6% 24,700$ 40% 11% 35,260$ 43% 16%
Rents and Fees Hangar Site Leases 24,100$ 38% 26% 18,800$ -22% 19% 21,420$ 14% 9% 26,360$ 23% 9% 29,140$ 11% 13% 32,300$ 11% 15%
Rents and Fees FBO Lease 17,900$ 0% 19% 18,300$ 2% 19% 18,600$ 2% 8% 18,900$ 2% 7% 19,200$ 2% 9% 19,600$ 2% 9%
Rents and Fees Ground Leases 16,600$ 37% 18% 17,000$ 2% 17% 47,400$ 179% 21% 48,800$ 3% 17% 50,200$ 3% 22% 51,600$ 3% 23%
Rents and Fees Fuel Tax 4,800$ -15% 5% 5,700$ 19% 6% 5,700$ 0% 2% 5,700$ 0% 2% 5,700$ 0% 3% 5,700$ 0% 3%
Grants Contribution from Local/Federal Gov. Fund -$ 0% 0%0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%
Misc. Earnings Investment Earnings 900$ 39% 1% 900$ 0% 1% 900$ 0% 0% 900$ 0% 0% 900$ 0% 0% 900$ 0% 0%
Misc. Earnings Misc. Earnings 2,900$ 0% 3% 10,900$ 276% 11% 105,400$ 867% 46% 153,400$ 46% 53% 72,900$ -52% 33% 52,900$ -27% 24%
Expenses 179,195$ Δ % of Exp 236,400$ Δ % of Exp 360,894$ Δ % of Exp 439,624$ Δ % of Exp 374,219$ Δ % of Exp 381,200$ Δ % of Exp
Salaries and Benefits Salaries - Full Time -$ -100% 0% 55,000$ 0% 23% 56,000$ 2% 16% 57,000$ 2% 13% 58,000$ 2% 15% 59,000$ 2% 15%
Salaries and Benefits Salaries - Seasonal 1,600$ 50% 1% 1,700$ 6% 1% 1,800$ 6% 0% 2,000$ 11% 0% 2,200$ 10% 1% 2,500$ 14% 1%
Salaries and Benefits Health Insurance -$ -100% 0% 10,000$ 0% 4% 12,500$ 25% 3% 15,600$ 25% 4% 19,500$ 25% 5% 24,400$ 25% 6%
Salaries and Benefits Retirement -$ -100% 0% 4,000$ 0% 2% 4,500$ 13% 1% 5,000$ 11% 1% 5,500$ 10% 1% 6,200$ 13% 2%
Salaries and Benefits Travel, Dues, and Training -$ -100% 0% 800$ 0% 0% 800$ 0% 0% 800$ 0% 0% 800$ 0% 0% 900$ 13% 0%
Equipment and Supplies Office Supplies -$ -100% 0% 600$ 0% 0% 2,300$ 283% 1% 3,000$ 30% 1% 2,300$ -23% 1% 2,300$ 0% 1%
Equipment and Supplies Electricity 1,900$ 3% 1% 2,100$ 11% 1% 2,300$ 10% 1% 2,500$ 9% 1% 2,700$ 8% 1% 3,000$ 11% 1%
Equipment and Supplies Telephone -$ -100% 0% 800$ 0% 0% 800$ 0% 0% 800$ 0% 0% 800$ 0% 0% 800$ 0% 0%
Equipment and Supplies Equipment Rental 800$ -46% 0% 1,800$ 125% 1% 1,900$ 6% 1% 2,100$ 11% 0% 2,400$ 14% 1% 2,700$ 13% 1%
Contract Services CS-Labor+Materials 36,000$ 89% 20% 16,500$ -54% 7% 24,000$ 45% 7% 72,800$ 203% 17% 10,800$ -85% 3% 12,200$ 13% 3%
Contract Services CS-Snow 5,395$ 6% 3% 5,500$ 2% 2% 5,800$ 5% 2% 6,300$ 9% 1% 7,000$ 11% 2% 7,900$ 13% 2%
Contract Services CS-Legal 21,300$ 526% 12% 21,700$ 2% 9% 22,800$ 5% 6% 24,600$ 8% 6% 27,000$ 10% 7% 30,300$ 12% 8%
Contract Services Equipment Mantenance 1,500$ 434% 1% 7,900$ 427% 3% 8,300$ 5% 2% 9,000$ 8% 2% 9,900$ 10% 3% 11,100$ 12% 3%
Contract Services Property Insurance 8,600$ -31% 5% 6,700$ -22% 3% 7,100$ 6% 2% 7,700$ 8% 2% 8,500$ 10% 2% 9,600$ 13% 3%
Government Transfer Maintenance by Public Works -$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0%
Government Transfer Administrative Transfer 1,500$ -65% 1% 3,200$ 113% 1% 5,300$ 66% 1% 4,800$ -9% 1% 2,700$ -44% 1% 1,900$ -30% 0%
Government Transfer Data Processing Transfer 5,500$ 51% 3% 4,100$ -25% 2% 10,500$ 156% 3% 15,100$ 44% 3% 13,200$ -13% 4% 14,700$ 11% 4%
Depreciation Depreciation 95,100$ -1% 53% 94,000$ -1% 40% 91,900$ -2% 25% 91,900$ 0% 21% 90,800$ -1% 24% 85,700$ -6% 22%
Construction Construction-In-Progress -$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0% 14,794$ 0% 4% 31,124$ 110% 7% 110,119$ 254% 29% 106,000$ -4% 28%
One-Time Expenses Acquisition Costs -$ 0% 0%-$ 0% 0% 87,500$ 0% 24% 87,500$ 0% 20%-$ -100% 0%-$ 0% 0%
Net Revenue (Loss) - Accounting (85,995)$ (137,600)$ (132,874)$ (149,164)$ (150,879)$ (160,340)$
Net Revenue (Loss) - Cash Flow 9,105$ (43,600)$ (40,974)$ (57,264)$ (60,079)$ (74,640)$
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
A ltern ative 3 Pro Fo rm a
Alternative 3 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Operating Revenues (+)93,200 98,800 228,020 290,460 223,340 220,860
Operating Expenses (Except Depreciation) (-)84,095 142,400 166,700 229,100 173,300 189,500
Capital Expenses (-)--102,294 118,624 110,119 106,000
Surplus (Shortfall)9,105 (43,600) (40,974) (57,264) (60,079) (74,640)
39
Alternative 3 Pro Forma
74
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Lease Number Lease Name
City
payment
due on
closure
Lease Term Lease Rate Lease Start Estimated
City Payout Payout Assumptions
1 Red Eagle Yes
20 years ‐
plus two 5
year
extensions
$8,064 (office)
and $9,600
(hangars) per
year, and $3,600
fee for fuel
system
Oct‐05
$650,000
(estimate, not
included in
total below)
Termination by city requires appraisal of fair
value of the remaining term of the lease and
payment of that amount to the lessee
2 Hangars 1 & 9 ‐
Peter Gross No 1 Year $500 per month Jul‐06 $0
Lease is subject to termination by lessee if
airport is abandoned. No closure payment
clause in lease
3 Condo Hangar
A‐3‐1 Sands Yes 20 years $0.16 per square
foot per year Feb‐07
Contained in
the total
Master Plan
number of
$1.9 million
Lease clause requires payment of "fair
market value at the then existing usage of the
improvements constructed on the site"
4
Condo Hangar
A‐3‐2 Mount
Cleveland
Yes 20 years $0.16 per square
foot per year Apr‐07
Contained in
the total
Master Plan
number of
$1.9 million
Lease clause requires payment of "fair
market value at the then existing usage of the
improvements constructed on the site"
5 Condo Hangar
A‐3‐3 Pierce Yes 20 years $0.16 per square
foot per year Feb‐07
Contained in
the total
Master Plan
number of
$1.9 million
Lease clause requires payment of "fair
market value at the then existing usage of the
improvements constructed on the site"
6 Site A‐4 T&L Yes 20 years $0.16 per square
foot per year Aug‐07
Contained in
the total
Master Plan
number of
$1.9 million
Lease clause requires payment of "fair
market value at the then existing usage of the
improvements constructed on the site"
7 Site A‐5 Mount
Cleveland Yes 20 years $0.16 per square
foot per year Nov‐08
Contained in
the total
Master Plan
number of
$1.9 million
Lease clause requires payment of "fair
market value at the then existing usage of the
improvements constructed on the site"
8 Site A‐5 Gross Yes 20 years $0.16 per square
foot per year Oct‐06 $343,200
$130/ sq. ft. assumed for original
construction cost, times approximate 88'X75'
bldg. = $858,000. Residual value assumes
straight‐line depreciation and 15 year useful
life (858,000/15=57,000 per year). Payout
value equal to remaining six years
(57,200/year x6 = 343,200)
9 Site A‐7 Goose
Bay Yes 20 years $0.16 per square
foot per year Oct‐04 $125,333
$130/ sq. ft. assumed for original
construction cost, times approximate 60'x60'
bldg. = $470,000. Residual value assumes
straight‐line depreciation and 15 year useful
life (470,000/15=31,333 per year). Payout
value equal to remaining four years
(31,333/year x4 = 125,333)
10 Site A‐8 HC‐60 Yes 20 years $0.16 per square
foot per year Jul‐06 $188,000
$130/ sq. ft. assumed for original
construction cost, times approximate 60'x60'
bldg. = $470,000. Residual value assumes
straight‐line depreciation and 15 year useful
life (470,000/15=31,333 per year). Payout
value equal to remaining six years
(31,333/year x6 = 188,000)
11
Site A‐8 North
Country
Holdings
12 Site A‐11
Padilla No 20 years
$0.17 per square
foot per year ‐
empty site
Feb‐08 $0
City payment clause only refers to
unamortized portion of the cost of a hangar.
No hangar on this site.
13 Site A‐12
Strand Yes 10 years $0.16 per square
foot per year Oct‐06 $249,600
$130/ sq. ft. assumed for original
construction cost, times approximate 60'x80'
bldg. = $624,000. Residual value assumes
straight‐line depreciation and 15 year useful
life ($624,000/15=$41,600 per year). Payout
value equal to remaining six years
($41,600/year x6 = $249,600)
14 Site A‐1,2,3 Yes 20 years $0.16 per square
foot per year N/A
Contained in
the total
Master Plan
number of
$1.9 million
Lease clause requires payment of "fair
market value at the then existing usage of the
improvements constructed on the site"
15 T‐Hangar ‐
Billmayber No 1 year $500 per month N/A $0
Lease is subject to termination by lessee if
airport is abandoned. No closure payment
clause in lease
16 Hilton No 99 years $0.16 per square
foot per year N/A $0 None
$906,133Total City Payments
Part of Above Lease
Kalispell City Airport ‐ Existing Lease Buyout Summary
April 2016
75
Lease Number Lease Name City payment due on closure Lease Term Lease Rate Lease Start Estimated City Payout Payout Assumptions1 Red Eagle Yes 20 years ‐ plus two 5 year extensions $8,064 (office) and $9,600 (hangars) per year, and $3,600 fee for fuel system Oct‐05 $650,000 (estimate, not included in total below)Termination by city requires appraisal of fair value of the remaining term of the lease and payment of that amount to the lessee2Hangars 1 & 9 ‐Peter Gross No 1 Year $500 per month Jul‐06 $0 Lease is subject to termination by lessee if airport is abandoned. No closure payment clause in lease3Condo Hangar A‐3‐1 Sands Yes 20 years $0.16 per square foot per year Feb‐07 Contained in the total Master Plan number of $1.9 million Lease clause requires payment of "fair market value at the then existing usage of the improvements constructed on the site"4 Condo Hangar A‐3‐2 Mount Cleveland Yes 20 years $0.16 per square foot per year Apr‐07 Contained in the total Master Plan number of $1.9 million Lease clause requires payment of "fair market value at the then existing usage of the improvements constructed on the site"5 Condo Hangar A‐3‐3 Pierce Yes 20 years $0.16 per square foot per year Feb‐07 Contained in the total Master Plan number of $1.9 million Lease clause requires payment of "fair market value at the then existing usage of the improvements constructed on the site"6 Site A‐4 T&L Yes 20 years $0.16 per square foot per year Aug‐07 Contained in the total Master Plan number of $1.9 million Lease clause requires payment of "fair market value at the then existing usage of the improvements constructed on the site"7 Site A‐5 Mount Cleveland Yes 20 years $0.16 per square foot per year Nov‐08 Contained in the total Master Plan number of $1.9 million Lease clause requires payment of "fair market value at the then existing usage of the improvements constructed on the site"
8 Site A‐5 Gross Yes 20 years $0.16 per square
foot per year Oct‐06 $343,200
$130/ sq. ft. assumed for original
construction cost, times approximate 88'X75'
bldg. = $858,000. Residual value assumes
straight‐line depreciation and 15 year useful
life (858,000/15=57,000 per year). Payout
value equal to remaining six years
(57,200/year x6 = 343,200)
9 Site A‐7 Goose
Bay Yes 20 years $0.16 per square
foot per year Oct‐04 $125,333
$130/ sq. ft. assumed for original
construction cost, times approximate 60'x60'
bldg. = $470,000. Residual value assumes
straight‐line depreciation and 15 year useful
life (470,000/15=31,333 per year). Payout
value equal to remaining four years
(31,333/year x4 = 125,333)
10 Site A‐8 HC‐60 Yes 20 years $0.16 per square
foot per year Jul‐06 $188,000
$130/ sq. ft. assumed for original
construction cost, times approximate 60'x60'
bldg. = $470,000. Residual value assumes
straight‐line depreciation and 15 year useful
life (470,000/15=31,333 per year). Payout
value equal to remaining six years
(31,333/year x6 = 188,000)
11
Site A‐8 North
Country
Holdings
12 Site A‐11
Padilla No 20 years
$0.17 per square
foot per year ‐
empty site
Feb‐08 $0
City payment clause only refers to
unamortized portion of the cost of a hangar.
No hangar on this site.
13 Site A‐12
Strand Yes 10 years $0.16 per square
foot per year Oct‐06 $249,600
$130/ sq. ft. assumed for original
construction cost, times approximate 60'x80'
bldg. = $624,000. Residual value assumes
straight‐line depreciation and 15 year useful
life ($624,000/15=$41,600 per year). Payout
value equal to remaining six years
($41,600/year x6 = $249,600)
14 Site A‐1,2,3 Yes 20 years $0.16 per square
foot per year N/A
Contained in
the total
Master Plan
number of
$1.9 million
Lease clause requires payment of "fair
market value at the then existing usage of the
improvements constructed on the site"
15 T‐Hangar ‐
Billmayber No 1 year $500 per month N/A $0
Lease is subject to termination by lessee if
airport is abandoned. No closure payment
clause in lease
16 Hilton No 99 years $0.16 per square
foot per year N/A $0 None
$906,133Total City Payments
Part of Above Lease
Kalispell City Airport ‐ Existing Lease Buyout Summary
Lease Number Lease Name
City
payment
due on
closure
Lease Term Lease Rate Lease Start Estimated
City Payout Payout Assumptions
1 Red Eagle Yes
20 years ‐
plus two 5
year
extensions
$8,064 (office)
and $9,600
(hangars) per
year, and $3,600
fee for fuel
system
Oct‐05
$650,000
(estimate, not
included in
total below)
Termination by city requires appraisal of fair
value of the remaining term of the lease and
payment of that amount to the lessee
2 Hangars 1 & 9 ‐
Peter Gross No 1 Year $500 per month Jul‐06 $0
Lease is subject to termination by lessee if
airport is abandoned. No closure payment
clause in lease
3 Condo Hangar
A‐3‐1 Sands Yes 20 years $0.16 per square
foot per year Feb‐07
Contained in
the total
Master Plan
number of
$1.9 million
Lease clause requires payment of "fair
market value at the then existing usage of the
improvements constructed on the site"
4
Condo Hangar
A‐3‐2 Mount
Cleveland
Yes 20 years $0.16 per square
foot per year Apr‐07
Contained in
the total
Master Plan
number of
$1.9 million
Lease clause requires payment of "fair
market value at the then existing usage of the
improvements constructed on the site"
5 Condo Hangar
A‐3‐3 Pierce Yes 20 years $0.16 per square
foot per year Feb‐07
Contained in
the total
Master Plan
number of
$1.9 million
Lease clause requires payment of "fair
market value at the then existing usage of the
improvements constructed on the site"
6 Site A‐4 T&L Yes 20 years $0.16 per square
foot per year Aug‐07
Contained in
the total
Master Plan
number of
$1.9 million
Lease clause requires payment of "fair
market value at the then existing usage of the
improvements constructed on the site"
7 Site A‐5 Mount
Cleveland Yes 20 years $0.16 per square
foot per year Nov‐08
Contained in
the total
Master Plan
number of
$1.9 million
Lease clause requires payment of "fair
market value at the then existing usage of the
improvements constructed on the site"
8 Site A‐5 Gross Yes 20 years $0.16 per square
foot per year Oct‐06 $343,200
$130/ sq. ft. assumed for original
construction cost, times approximate 88'X75'
bldg. = $858,000. Residual value assumes
straight‐line depreciation and 15 year useful
life (858,000/15=57,000 per year). Payout
value equal to remaining six years
(57,200/year x6 = 343,200)
9 Site A‐7 Goose
Bay Yes 20 years $0.16 per square
foot per year Oct‐04 $125,333
$130/ sq. ft. assumed for original
construction cost, times approximate 60'x60'
bldg. = $470,000. Residual value assumes
straight‐line depreciation and 15 year useful
life (470,000/15=31,333 per year). Payout
value equal to remaining four years
(31,333/year x4 = 125,333)
10 Site A‐8 HC‐60 Yes 20 years $0.16 per square
foot per year Jul‐06 $188,000
$130/ sq. ft. assumed for original
construction cost, times approximate 60'x60'
bldg. = $470,000. Residual value assumes
straight‐line depreciation and 15 year useful
life (470,000/15=31,333 per year). Payout
value equal to remaining six years
(31,333/year x6 = 188,000)
11
Site A‐8 North
Country
Holdings
12 Site A‐11
Padilla No 20 years
$0.17 per square
foot per year ‐
empty site
Feb‐08 $0
City payment clause only refers to
unamortized portion of the cost of a hangar.
No hangar on this site.
13 Site A‐12
Strand Yes 10 years $0.16 per square
foot per year Oct‐06 $249,600
$130/ sq. ft. assumed for original
construction cost, times approximate 60'x80'
bldg. = $624,000. Residual value assumes
straight‐line depreciation and 15 year useful
life ($624,000/15=$41,600 per year). Payout
value equal to remaining six years
($41,600/year x6 = $249,600)
14 Site A‐1,2,3 Yes 20 years $0.16 per square
foot per year N/A
Contained in
the total
Master Plan
number of
$1.9 million
Lease clause requires payment of "fair
market value at the then existing usage of the
improvements constructed on the site"
15 T‐Hangar ‐
Billmayber No 1 year $500 per month N/A $0
Lease is subject to termination by lessee if
airport is abandoned. No closure payment
clause in lease
16 Hilton No 99 years $0.16 per square
foot per year N/A $0 None
$906,133Total City Payments
Part of Above Lease
Kalispell City Airport ‐ Existing Lease Buyout Summary
76
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
April 2016
77
7
9
3
6
51
8
10
2
4
10
0 1/4 1/2 Mile1/8 N
City of Kalispell
South Kalispell Urban Renewal District
7 Business Park
9 Park-N-Ride/Trailhead
10 Mixed-Use Development
3 Dog Park
4 Community Park
6 Welcome to Kalispell Sign
5 HWY 93 Trail Expansion
1 Cemetery Rd Project
8 Aviation Business Park
2 New Elementary School
78
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal PlanBIMPROVEMENT PROJECT PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES
APPENDIX B
Improvement 1 Estimate
Cemetery Rd Improvements $9,100,000
Improvement 2 Estimate
Elementary School N/A
Improvement 3 Estimate
Dog Park $400,000
Improvement 4 Estimate
Community Park $6,400,000
Improvement 5 Estimate
Expand Highway 93 bike and pedestrian trail network $650,000
Improvement 6 Estimate
“Welcome to Kalispell” sign $260,000
Improvement 7 Estimate
Highway 93 Business Park $16,700,000
Improvement 8 Estimate
Aviation Business Park $5,000,000
Improvement 9 Estimate
Park-N-Ride Trailhead $535,000
Improvement 10 Estimate
Relocate City Shops/1st Ave Commercial District $22,000,000
TOTAL $61,045,000
April 2016
79
CEMETERY ROAD PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES
Surveying/Staking 80 HR @ $100.00 =$8,000
Engineering/Design 1 LS @ $800,000.00 =$800,000
Asphalt Demo 6000 LF @ $30.00 =$180,000
Silt Fence/SWPP 12000 LF @ $2.91 =$34,920
Strip Topsoil 9 Acre @ $5,000.00 =$45,000
$1,067,920
Surveying/Staking 400 HR @ $100.00 =$40,000
Earthwork - Bulk 33000 CY @ $10.00 =$330,000
Finish Grade 27000 SY @ $2.00 =$54,000
Curb/Gutter 12000 LF @ $35.00 =$420,000
4" Asphalt/12" Base/18" Subbase 46' wide 6000 LF @ $312.00 =$1,872,000
$2,716,000
Surveying/Staking 500 HR @ $100.00 =$50,000
Storm Sewer w/Manholes 12000 LF @ $80.00 =$960,000
Sanitary Sewer w/Manholes 6000 LF @ $45.00 =$270,000
Water Line 12" Inc. Excav/Backfill 6000 LF @ $54.00 =$324,000
$1,604,000
Landscaping/Seeding 1 LS @ $200,000.00 =$200,000
$200,000
Site Lighting 100 EA @ $4,000.00 =$400,000.00
signage 1 LS @ $20,000.00 =$20,000.00
$420,000
Subtotal =$6,007,920
Contingency @ 25%=$1,501,980
Subtotal =$7,509,900
General Conditions @ 10%=$750,990.00
Subtotal =$8,260,890
Contractor OH & Profit @ 10%=$826,089
$9,086,979
$9,100,000
Cemetery Road Improvements
Demolition/Design/Prep
Grading/Roadways
Subtotal
Subtotal
Utilities
Subtotal
Rounded
Subtotal
Total
Landscaping/Irrigation
Amenities
Subtotal
80
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
DOG PARK PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES
Surveying/Staking 20 HR @ $100.00 =$2,000
Engineering/Design 1 LS @ $10,000.00 =$10,000
Site Demo 1 LS @ $500.00 =$500
Silt Fence/SWPP 120 LF @ $2.91 =$349
Strip Topsoil 2 Acre @ $5,000.00 =$10,000
$22,849
Surveying/Staking 20 HR @ $100.00 =$2,000
Earthwork - Bulk 1000 CY @ $10.00 =$10,000
Finish Grade 10000 SY @ $2.00 =$20,000
$32,000
Surveying/Staking 500 HR @ $100.00 =$50,000
Water Line 2" Inc. Excav/Backfill 1500 LF @ $34.00 =$51,000
$101,000
Landscaping/Seeding 1 LS @ $50,000.00 =$50,000
$50,000
Site Lighting 1 LS @ $10,000.00 =$10,000.00
Fencing 4000 LF @ $25.00 =$100,000.00
$110,000
Subtotal =$315,849
Contingency @ 5%=$15,792
Subtotal =$331,642
General Conditions @ 10%=$33,164.17
Subtotal =$364,806
Contractor OH & Profit @ 10%=$36,481
$401,286
$400,000Rounded
Subtotal
Total
Landscaping/Irrigation
Amenities
Subtotal
Dog Park
Demolition/Design/Prep
Grading
Subtotal
Subtotal
Utilities
Subtotal
April 2016
81
COMMUNITY PARK PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES
Community Center 1 LS @ $1,500,000 =$1,500,000
Splash Park 1 LS @ $400,000 =$400,000
Pavilion 1 LS @ $50,000 =$50,000
Volleyball 1 LS @ $30,000 =$30,000
Horseshoes 1 LS @ $4,000 =$4,000
Playground 1 LS @ $30,000 =$30,000
Parking 300spaces @ $2,000 =$600,000
Covered Basketball Courts 1 LS @ $100,000 =$100,000
Tennis Courts 2 EA @ $90,000 =$180,000
Picnic Area 1 LS @ $50,000 =$50,000
Event Lawn/Amphitheatre 1 LS @ $500,000 =$500,000
Soccer Fields 6 EA @ $50,000 =$300,000
Event Lawn 1 LS @ $30,000 =$30,000
Football Field 1 LS @ $400,000 =$400,000
Maintence Facility 1 LS @ $150,000 =$150,000
Skate Park 1 LS @ $100,000 =$100,000
Trail 4000 LF @ $80 =$320,000
Signage 1 LS @ $50,000 =$50,000
Road 1 LS @ $250,000 =$250,000
$5,044,000
Subtotal =$5,044,000
Contingency @ 5%=$252,200
Subtotal =$5,296,200
General Conditions @ 10%=$529,620.00
Subtotal =$5,825,820
Contractor OH & Profit @ 10%=$582,582
$6,408,402
$6,400,000Rounded
Subtotal
Total
Community Park
Community Park
82
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
HIGHWAY 93 TRAIL EXPANSION PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES
Surveying/Staking 40 HR @ $100.00 =$4,000
Engineering/Design 1 LS @ $10,000.00 =$10,000
Site Demo 1 LS @ $5,000.00 =$5,000
Silt Fence/SWPP 400 LF @ $2.91 =$1,164
Strip Topsoil 3 Acre @ $5,000.00 =$15,000
$35,164
Surveying/Staking 20 HR @ $100.00 =$2,000
Earthwork - Bulk 5500 CY @ $10.00 =$55,000
3" Asphalt/12" base/Geogrid 5000 LF @ $60.00 =$300,000
Finish Grade 11000 SY @ $2.00 =$22,000
$379,000
Surveying/Staking 20 HR @ $100.00 =$2,000
Incidental Utility Removal 1 LS @ $5,000.00 =$5,000
$7,000
Landscaping/Seeding 1 LS @ $50,000.00 =$50,000
$50,000
Site Lighting 1 LS @ $10,000.00 =$10,000.00
Benches 2 EA @ $800.00 =$1,600.00
$11,600
Subtotal =$482,764
Contingency @ 10%=$48,276
Subtotal =$531,040
General Conditions @ 10%=$53,104.04
Subtotal =$584,144
Contractor OH & Profit @ 10%=$58,414
$642,559
$650,000Rounded
Subtotal
Total
Landscaping/Irrigation
Amenities
Subtotal
Through-Connection of HWY 93 Trail System
Demolition/Design/Prep
Grading/Pavement
Subtotal
Subtotal
Utilities
Subtotal
April 2016
83
HIGHWAY 93 BUSINESS PARK PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES
A Commercial 16400 SF @ $180.00 = $2,952,000
B Commercial 15700 SF @ $190.00 =$2,983,000
C Light Industrial 11200 SF @ $140.00 =$1,568,000
D Light Industrial 15600 SF @ $140.00 =$2,184,000
E Light Industrial 8400 SF @ $140.00 =$1,176,000
F Light Industrial 10500 SF @ $140.00 =$1,470,000
Future Road 1 EA @ $150,000.00 =$150,000
Entry Feature 1 EA @ $60,000.00 =$60,000
Parking 290spaces @ $2,000.00 =$580,000
$13,123,000
Subtotal =$13,123,000
Contingency @ 5%=$656,150
Subtotal =$13,779,150
General Conditions @ 10%=$1,377,915.00
Subtotal =$15,157,065
Contractor OH & Profit @ 10%=$1,515,707
$16,672,772
$16,700,000Rounded
Subtotal
Total
HWY 93 Business Park
HWY 93 Business Park
84
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
AVIATION BUSINESS PARK PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES
Aviation Repair 12000 SF @ $125.00 =$1,500,000
Airport Operations 10000 SF @ $190.00 =$1,900,000
Site Utilities/Lighting 1 LS @ $150,000.00 =$150,000
Site Improvements/Parking 150 spaces @ $2,000.00 =$300,000
Misc. landscaping/Site Amenities 1 LS @ $50,000.00 =$50,000
$3,900,000
Subtotal =$3,900,000
Contingency @ 5%=$195,000
Subtotal =$4,095,000
General Conditions @ 10%=$409,500.00
Subtotal =$4,504,500
Contractor OH & Profit @ 10%=$450,450
$4,954,950
$5,000,000Rounded
Subtotal
Total
Aviation Business Park
Aviation Business Park
April 2016
85
PARK-N-RIDE TRAILHEAD PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES
Surveying/Staking 10 HR @ $100.00 = $1,000
Engineering/Design 10 % @ $1,000.00 = $10,000
Construction Entrance 1 LS @ $1,000.00 = $1,000Silt Fence/SWPP 2000 LF @ $2.91 = $5,820
Strip Topsoil 0.6 Acre @ $5,000.00 = $3,000
$20,820
Surveying/Staking 30 HR @ $100.00 = $3,000
Earthwork - Berming 600 CY @ $5.00 = $3,000Excavation1000 CY @ $12.00 = $12,000
Finish Grade for Parking Lots 3000 SY @ $1.13 = $3,390
$21,390
Surveying/Staking 20 HR @ $80.00 = $1,600
Water Line 2" Inc. Excav/Backll 200 LF @ $10.00 = $2,000Water Line Misc.1 LS @ $500.00 = $500
Fountain Drain 2" Sch 40 PVC 40 LF @ $4.68 = $187
$4,287
Surveying/Staking 30 HR @ $80.00 = $2,400
Asphalt Parking 4" x 12" Base 2000 SY @ $34.00 = $68,000Asphalt Drive Apron 4" x 10" Base 800 SY @ $34.00 = $27,200
Asphalt Pavement Sidewalk/Trail 10000 SF @ $5.00 = $50,000
Concrete Curb and Gutter 800 LF @ $30.00 = $24,000
Pavement Striping - Stalls 40 EA @ $8.80 = $352
Handicap Sign 4 EA @ $200.00 = $800
Paint Handicap Symbols 4 EA @ $100.00 = $400$173,152
Picnic Shelter 1 EA @ $30,000.00 = $30,000Bridge1000 SF @ $90.00 = $90,000
Benches 2 EA @ $500.00 = $1,000
$121,000
Park 'N' Ride Trailhead
Demolition/Design/Prep
Grading
Paving
Subtotal
Subtotal
Utilities
Subtotal
Subtotal
Buildings/Structures
Subtotal
Topsoil Placement 850 CY @ $15.00 $12,750
Evergreen Trees 5 EA @ $200.00 = $1,000
Deciduous Trees 14 EA @ $200.00 = $2,800Lawn/Sod 40 MSF @ $390.00 = $15,600
Native Grasses 1 Acre @ $6,000.00 = $6,000
Irrigation System 0.5 AC @ $20,000.00 = $10,000
Fertilizer (in-place)40 MSF @ $3.89 $156
$48,306
Drinking Fountain 1 EA @ $4,000.00 = $4,000.00
Site Lighting 4 ea @ $4,000.00 = $16,000.00
Directional/Entry Signage 1 LS @ $12,000.00 = $12,000.00$32,000
Subtotal = $420,955
Contingency @ 5% = $21,048Subtotal= $442,003
General Conditions @ 10% = $44,200
Subtotal = $486,203
Contractor OH & Prot @ 10% = $48,620
$534,823
$535,000Say
Subtotal
Total
Landscaping/Irrigation
Amenities
Subtotal
Rounded
86
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
RELOCATE CITY SHOPS/1ST AVE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES
A Livework 12000 SF @ $180.00 =$2,160,000
B Livework 17000 SF @ $190.00 =$3,230,000
C Livework 22000 SF @ $220.00 =$4,840,000
D Livework 10500 SF @ $200.00 =$2,100,000
E Livework 12000 SF @ $200.00 =$2,400,000
F Livework 9000 SF @ $200.00 =$1,800,000
Site Utilities 1 EA @ $150,000.00 =$150,000
Signage/Lighting/amenities 1 EA @ $200,000.00 =$200,000
Parking 180 spaces @ $2,000.00 =$360,000
$17,240,000
Subtotal =$17,240,000
Contingency @ 5%=$862,000
Subtotal =$18,102,000
General Conditions @ 10%=$1,810,200.00
Subtotal =$19,912,200
Contractor OH & Profit @ 10%=$1,991,220
$21,903,420
$22,000,000Rounded
Subtotal
Total
1st Ave Commercial District
1st Ave Commercial District
APRIL 2016
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan