Appendix F/Correspondence with FAAKalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study August 1999
APPENDIX F
CORRESPONDENCE WITH FAA
TEL:406 449 5274 P.006
JUN. -02' 98(TUE) 15�31 AIRPORTS DIST OFFICE I
21�
U. S. Department All
of Transportation 27
Federal Aviation
Administration
February 21, 1997
Mr, Clarence W. Krepps
City Manager. City of Kalispell
P_ O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903-1997
Dear Mr. Krepps:
This is in response to your February 4 letter regarding the F
financial support for airport development at Kalispell City.
questions and make some observations regarding items rely
meeting and my January 7 letter: The City of Kalispell has
(you), has resolved the sponsorship issue, has stated a posit
accesses to the airport, and is creating an airport manager's
positive steps and show the City's commitment to the airpo
It was not my intent that the concept of an airport Master Pla;
was not discussed at the December meeting but much regardi
discussed in that meeting. A Master Plan is the typical proce
time FAA involvement in an airport and we strongly recomrr
much needs to be accomplished. Much work has been done
documents but this information needs to be in one document.
want us to "...review all of the current plans and documents...
reviewed some of what has been submitted but it is difficult <
intermingled with other information and is contained in varic
JRTS DISTRICT OFFICE
Skyway Drive. Suite 2
a, MT 59601
ass of obtaining our
)ort. You bring up several
to the December 1996
iblished a point of contact
regarding the private
ition. These are all very
be a "major surprise"_ It
g our process was not
; for a new airport or first
nd it be the process used as
td is contained in various
Your comment that you
is an example. We have
airport information is
� documents.
We did discuss a window of opportunity but that was predicat
before we would be in a position to fund anything other than a
need to be accomplished by you and the most efficient way to a
Master Plan. It allows our funding program to fund these item
accomplished. It allows for an orderly process which clearly d
allows for all items to be addressed and resolved so that everyc
to be done by who, when and at what cost. A grant could be is,
few months depending on timeliness of consultant selection an
subject to the national trust fund issue being resolved). This M
accomplished by a qualified aviation party (consultant, etc.), b
document that brings everything together and shows the future
on much happening
[aster Plan. Many things
complish this is with a
as they are being
Ines the work scope and
e wU1 know what needs
ted for such a study in a
various reviews (and
ster Plan, which must be
tomes the basic
f the airport.
JUN. -O OTUE) 15:32 AIRPORTS DIST OFFICE TEL 06 449 5? P. 00
Without doing this Master Plan you will need to fund these i�ems without our
participation. If we issue a grant in the future some items w Id be eligible for our
participation. Any costs we may participate in would requir�eview for reasonableness
and allowability and we would need to review the qualifications of those that perform
those efforts. More specifics on this can be better defined if t
e get further into that
process.
Items required to be accomplished by you with or without a F+ funded Master Plan
include: early resolution of the towers issue, information reg ding the future activity and
role of the airport, an environmental assessment (EA), land e and controls around the
airport, completion of the Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the development of the property
map and a financial plan. Other items such as a plan for the acquisition of the many
properties that need to be acquired could be included but wou�d not necessarily be
required.
The most important item that needs to be accomplished early Is the environmental
processing (EA). The EA will contain much detail such as an Petnatives analysis to the
proposed improvements which would include a do nothing alternative, new and existing
site alternatives and an alternative of the availability of GIaci I Park Int'l. Airport, future
activity and role of the airport, community support, noise imp;ts, safety impacts, an
opportunity for a public hearing, etc. The EA needs to be finished prior to taking any
action (such as land acquisition) that indicates decisions have already been made. In
theory the environmental process is unbiased and supports decisions for airport
improvements. If decisions are made that are counter to the E1 conclusions they must be
strongly supported and rationale presented as to why they are t e best decisions.
Much detail is needed for the other various items listed such asi land use and control
documentation as to what exists and what is needed in the futu e, accurate cost estimates
for the total airport project, who would be expected to pay for hat and when, future
revenue generation and costs of operation and maintenance, etc. I have not Iisted all of
the detail items but you can see there is a lot of detail to be accomplished by qualified
parties.
Thank you for the copies of the preliminary ALP. I was considering initiating an airspace
evaluation of the tower located further away from the airport to! determine what impacts it
would have such as future instrument minimums, etc., in the event it was not moved.
This is premature because of both towers needing to work together. Before an airspace
analysis is initiated we need to know where the two towers would be after any
modifications or moving of one or both. We don't have enoug� information to proceed.
You discuss community support and the many meetings that have been held and that
there has been no opposition. This is very positive. However, during these various effort
was the future role of the airport and the potential for increased activity including
executive jet traffic and possible increased noise impacts discussed? What are the
impacts if the runway is moved to the south and lengthened to 4700 ft.? As you can see
these type of questions will need to be addressed and this is done in the EA.
i
JUN. -0?' 98 (TUE) 15 � 3? AIRPORTS D I ST OFF I GE TEL: 406 449 5274 P. 008
You comment that we appear to be overly sensitive about a all amount of opposition.
Over the years we have observed that small amounts of oppo ition can grow (or be very
onerous if small) when more information about the airport i provements becomes known
and the public becomes better educated about those improver ents. The environmental
process of numerous airport improvements around the coun have been challenged .by
"small amounts" of opposition. Our position is that comet ty support relating to the
future role and improvements of the airport must be address . This is necessary due to
the location of the airport in relation to residences, schools, b inesses, etc. Incidentally,
we received a letter from another concerned citizen regarding the airport improvements
which you should have also received as you were copied on tl, a letter.
The land acquisition by the city is a necessary item to be acco plished without our
participation and will require following Uniform Act provisio
. Our offer of support
was based on the City acquiring the land and resolving the to
ers issue and using our
program to fund (at 90%) the on airport improvements. This
ould be the case regardless
of uniform act requirements, although we needed to verify tha the uniform act needed to
be met. We do not intend on funding the land under our pro
am. In the past we were
not supporting any FAA financial aid for the airport so the a
enditure of City funds for
the tower and land issues along with accomplishing the vario
items previously stated is
a condition of our financial support for the on airport improve
gents. This is all predicated
on the EA processing and as previously stated we need to be c
utious about
predetermining the decisions without environmental analysis.
No action has yet been taken on NPIAS inclusion and this will be done when it is
appropriate. Prior to conducting the Master Plan we will place the airport in the NPIAS
temporarily until it is completed and leave it in if we continue o support the airport. If
the Master Plan is not undertaken we will wait until we are clo er to a grant after or near
completion of the many items that need to be accomplished. The NPIAS inclusion is not
necessary from our view until we get closer to some sort of f ltl4ing.
You make a comment regarding ...frustration over the "moving targets" our agency has
historically presented.... Our position until the State Aviation conference last year in
Helena was that we were not going to support this airport. At � t conference we agreed
to reconsider that position and effort was expended by you to some preliminary ALP
work and to get more information. During the December 1996 eeting you agreed that
certain standards would be met and we stated consideration for upport if the city was
willing work the tower issue and purchase land, My January ? etter then outlined the
process and many details that need to be accomplished. Our int ntion is to move forward
cautiously and have answers to the many items that have to be a dress. The Master Plan
will accomplish this with minimal risk to either party.
Following are answers or comments to your 5 questions in your �ebruary 4 letter.
This letter along with the material being sent to you should answer this. If it remains
unclear please let me know.
JUA'. -o?' 98(TUE) 15:33 AIRPORTS DIST OFFICE
TEL-069 5274 P.O09
2. No, the City will not be required to complete a Master Plan prior to any FAA funding
considerations. However, the City will have to accomplish the various items I have
enumerated in this letter prior to any FAA funding considerations (except for funding of a
Master Plan).
3. Yes, as relates to the closest tower. We plan to initiate an airspace analysis of the
other tower, if it remains, when it is known what happens to the closest tower.
4. Yes as relates to Iand needed for minimum airport standards items which includes
lateral dimensional standards.
5. I presumed the "ball" was rolling since our December 1996 meeting and nothing was
needed to get it rolling again. My January 7 letter was to inform you of the process
needed and this letter will add to and clarify that letter. Again, there is much that has to
be accomplished and we believe a Master Plan 90% funded through our program is the
process to accomplish this effort. This and the matey handouts and advisory circulars I'm
sending you separately should provide enough information for some specifics to assist
you. We encourage you to get on the Advisory Circular Mailing list so you can get more
of our publications that will be needed down the road.
This letter contains much information regarding our process and we recognize that it is
not complete as the process is complex. As with these type of projects (first time airport
sponsor and FAA participation) there is much to be done in detail to satisfy our process.
As you can see the assistance of someone qualified and knowledgeable about airports and
our program would be very beneficial to you_
Please caII me at 449-5271 after you reviewed this letter and information and we can
discuss this further.
Sincerely,
�44�
David P. Gabbe
Manager
cc:
MT State Aeronautics
Gilbert Bissell
October 2, 1998 -
co
;-
N
r� n
Mr. Dave Gabbert
Federal Aviation Administration
Department of Transportation
2725 Skyway Drive, Suite #1
Helena, MT 59602
Dear Mr. Gabbert:
Thank you for attending the Kalispell City Council Workshop September 28 where the initial report
on the Kalispell City Airport Master Plan was presented. We found the information and discussion
to be extremely beneficial. Your comments were very helpful.
We are writing to confirm our understanding of some key issues raised during the discussions
Monday evening. These are outlined as follows:
We understand that there is no Federal statutory exclusion of ALP funding for B-I airports.
2. We understand that the restriction on initial/new ALP funding for property acquisition to
"close -in" B-II airports is a matter of FAA discretionary policy, rather than statute.
We understand that ALP reimbursement for land acquisition funding is possible if the airport
is to be developed to B-II width standards by City acquisitions at a 75% or greater length, and
if acquisitions are made following "Uniform Act" provisions.
4. The City of Kalispell is prepared to commit up to one mullion dollars (plus Montana
Aeronautics and other funding as available), and is prepared to assure the long term
management, protection and operation of the Kalispell City Airport. This sum from the City
would pay 100% of KGEZ radio tower relocation or other mitigation measures as identified,
with the remainder of City money to be used on a 10%/90% match with AIP funds in order
to finance land acquisition and on -airport improvements (runway, taxiway, ramps, aprons,
earthwork, lighting and fencing, etc.). It is understood that based on Phase I of the Morrison-
Maierle Airport Master Plan, the approximate total cost of this project will be 6.3 million
dollars.
Post Office Box 1997 - Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997
Telephone (406) 758-7700 - FAX (406) 758-7758
Dave Gabbert
October 2, 1998
Page Two
We would appreciate your confirmation of these understandings. We look forward to working with
you and the Federal Aviation Administration in the further improvements to Kalispell City Airport.
As always, either of us are available to answer any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
Wm T - 5 6a4i
Wm. E. Boharski
Mayor
City of Kalispell
Chairman
Kalispell City Airport Authority
cc: Lowell Johnson, Manager
Airports Division, FAA
Renton_ WA 98055-0456
Gilbert K. Bissell
Chairman
Kalispell City Airport
Advisory Board
n
U. S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
October 8, 1998
The Honorable William. E. Boharski
Mayor, City of Kalispell
P. O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903-1997
- Dear Mayor Boharski:
AIRPORTS DISTRICT OFFICE
2725 Skyway Drive, Suite 2
Helena, MT 59602-1213
This is in response to your October 2 letter in which you indicated your understanding of
several key issues raised during the City Council meeting of September 28 where an
initial report for the Kalispell City Airport Master Plan Study (MPS) was presented. I
was at the meeting and appreciated the opportunity to provide comments. These
responses to your listed items are in the order you presented them. I'll also provide
additional comments regarding other issues regarding the airport.
1. That is correct unless aircraft using an airport are in a higher design standards criteria.
There is a statutory requirement to meet standards as prescribed by FAA. Our design
standards criteria is established by the type of aircraft using (or forecast to use) an airport
and this criteria is considered minimum criteria and we go to a higher level if conditions
warrant. Surveys for Kalispell City Airport apparently have shown no using aircraft in
the `B-II" category. However, if we fund airport development, it is our policy that the
minimum design standards category that needs to be met is for the `B-II" condition. If
this airport is improved there is the potential for considerable additional activity.
Developing the airport to this category allows for such activity to be accommodated with
future limited constraints.
2. Initial/new AIP funding for any development for any airport is at our discretion.
Many factors are used to determine our involvement in airport development and include
safety issues, efficiency of the development including the financial aspects, aeronautical
viability, environmental conditions, alternatives, priority, need and timing of the
development, availability of funding, etc.
3. Required airport land is an eligible item of development even some years after
purchase so there is the "possibility" of future reimbursement. As stated in our previous
letters and as originally discussed, if we agree to provide funds for development, we
expect the city to obtain control of the land needed for the `B-H".condition in addition to
the cost associated with the radio towers resolution. This land consists of several parcels
2
bordering the present airport boundaries. This control could be by trade, donation or fee
acquisition subject to the "Uniform Act" provisions. When the MPS is completed and the
various issues have been addressed, we will review and discuss with the city what options
may be suitable for proceeding with obtaining this land, if we both agree to continue with
development of the airport. If we fund future development, we will consider the land
needed for runway protection zones (RPZ) as part of the FAA eligible development.
4. We acknowledge the statements you make; however, we won't commit to
any development or funding scenarios other than what we have previously stated.
Additionally, we do not commit to funding any development at the airport until the MPS
is completed and the various issues have been addressed. At that time we will consider
the results and make a decision regarding funding of development. In considering the
results, various items will be evaluated which will include; if any items/issues remain to
be addressed such as the environmental process, any options that might be available,
costs of the development compared to costs of an alternative site (to determine financial
viability), what agreements should be formalized regarding who would be responsible for
what and timing of the various items/issues. These would all be discussed with the city
before any commitments are made.
Additional comments from the meeting:
The process for continuing on to phase two of the MPS (or terminating the MPS) should
be formalized. The consultant should complete phase one and notify thc'various parties
that it has been completed per the contract terms. The city should then acknowledge
completion and indicate a decision to continue or terminate the MPS. We will support
the decision to continue the MPS if the city chooses to continue.
The runway length may be constructed initially to accommodate 75% of the GA fleet
(approx. 3,600 ft.), although we would recommend it be constructed to 95% length
(approx. 4,300 ft.) based on present activity and what is anticipated to occur if the airport
is improved. The Airport Layout Plan (ALP) to be developed during the MPS needs to
show the 95% length as a minimum. We recommend the 100% length (approx. 4,700 ft.)
be shown so all future planning around the airport can be predicated on potential future
airport expansion. If the 100% length is not shown, it won't be protected and this could
close out future options. Showing these longer lengths is not a commitment to
constructing those lengths. If the runway is not extended, these protected areas provide
for additional approach buffer areas.
A comment was made regarding land previously acquired for RPZ on the north and if it
would be eligible for future reimbursement. We will need to review the details of that
purchase and if we are involved in the future with airport development this may be
considered depending on specifics such as how it was purchased, cost reasonableness,
location of the land and how it fits with overall development scheme.
3
I am enclosing previous correspondence dated 4/19/91, 1/7/97 and 2/21/97 which
provides some history, outlines the various issues relating to the airport, states our
conditions regarding future funding that resulted from the 12/96 meeting and provides the
process needed for us to determine if we would fund development in the future. The
items/issues stated in these letters are concerns of ours and we will be cautious about our
funding airport development at this site. Additionally, enclosed is a set of Assurances
that sponsors of airport receiving AIP grants are to comply with. A comment was made
at the meeting regarding "FAA requiring" many things. These Assurances cover many of
these "requirements". I am including these items for your convenient reference.
We are available to discuss any of the various issues regarding the airport any time you
and/or the City Council or others would like to discuss them. If you have additional
working sessions/meetings regarding the airport, or if anyone wants to call and discuss
anything, please contact Gary Gates at (406) 449-5230 or myself at (406) 449-5271.
Sincerely,
�� A��
avid P. Ga Bert
Manager
Enclosures
cc:
Gilbert K. Bissell
Morrison Maierle
ANM-600