Loading...
Appendix L/Minutes from MeetingsKalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study August 1999 APPENDIX L MINUTES FROM MEETINGS 103 KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT PUBLIC MEETING - CITY BUILDING KALISPELL, MT 6/15/99 PRESENTATION I'm Tim Orthmeyer, Morrison-Maierle Engineer. Here with me tonight are Tony Feilzer, Terry Richmond from our Kalispell office, Dave Gabbert from the Airport District Office in Helena, and Mike Ferguson, Montana Aeronautics. This is an informal meeting on the plan we have developed from the Master Plan Study. We have completed Phase I which was done earlier and we are now into Phase 11. We want to share some different alternatives with you tonight. First I'll talk about how this project is broken down and give you some project history and some educational material so that we can all talk about the same thing when we get into more of the technical information. Chapter 1. Phase I - the inventory section of the study was completed during the Feasibility Study. That is where we looked at what is at your airport, i.e., how many based aircraft, how many hangers, the runway alignment, etc. Just some basic information to get started. Chapter 2. We look at the forecasts and predict ow many aircraft will be using the airport, how many hangers will be needed, how many tie downs will be needed, etc. — future development items. We will get into more detail about all of these a little later. Chapter 3. This is the Feasibility Study that we did at the request of the FAA to identify some key issues and see if there were some resolutions to those before we went on. One of those issues is the "Through the Fence" operations. That is where you have a public airport and have a private entity using that public airport without some sort of compensation to the airport owner. That is considered "private use of a public facility". If federal money is involved with the project, that isn't allowed by the FAA. That is one of the things that will need to be cleared up should the FAA participate in any part of the airport development. • The AM Tower evaluation, many of you who are pilots know there are some towers to the south of the airport that are considered obstructions. They are bad enough obstructions that the FAA wants them taken care of in some way before they will participate. They have asked the city to take care of in some way before they will participate. They have asked the city to take care of that as part of their obligation should the FAA participate in the funding. We will talk about the resolution of that in a minute. • We took a look at the air space analysis. We looked at what was available and then with each of the alternatives we looked at some of the airspace implications. Land Acquisition Requirements: This is another item we looked at during Phase I and identified what land would be needed for a B-II airport. The B-II is basically the minimum size airport that the FAAwill participate in for safety reasons. They expect the owner to protect that land from development in and around the airport. • Development Costs. We looked at what it would cost to build a B-11 airport at the existing site and compared that to a generic site. That isn't a specific site, but it is in the vicinity of Kalispell, 3-to-8 miles away from town. A generic lay out at the generic location. • Environmental Overview. We also take that a little bit father and looked at an environmental overview of each alternative we looked at during Phase II. Chapter 4. The Facility Requirements. That is based on the forecasts and the existing facility. We looked at what facilities you will need in the planning period which is about twenty years. From what we can determine whether the ideal site will be at the existing location or a generic location. For example, how many hangers, tie downs, runway length, etc. Chapter 5. Site Analysis. That is where we looked at all the different alternatives that we've identified. Chapter 6. Financial Plan. That is the next phase of the project. Once we've identified the costs, then we will sit down with the city staff and identify a method to fund and finance the whole project. Project History In 1979, there was a Master Plan Study done. We reviewed the information in that Study so we would be aware of what they predicted at that time. We also looked at the 1996 Neighborhood Plan. That was a good plan and it contained a lot of good information. Some of that material has been incorporated into our study. That plan talked about the town obstructions and the need to purchase the land for a B-11 airport. Airport Reference Codes. (Referring to overhead). You will hear us talk bout B-1 and B-11 airports and I'll share with you a little bit of what that means. The airport approach category is based on approach speed. That impacts the size airport you need. The Design Group is numbers 1-4. Those are the physical characteristics of the aircraft — the wider the wing span, the more clearance is needed. Runway Standards and dimensional criteria are established by the approach speed and the wing span. Also the minimums — the lower the minimums, the better airport you need and the more space requirements you need. A-1 = approach speed less than 91 knots. That is the slowest aircraft. The pretty small ones with a wing span up to and not including 49 feet (i.e., Cessna 150, 172, Bonanza, Beech Baron, Beaver) B-1 = approach speed over 91 knots but less than 121 knots. They are faster than an "A" but slower than a "C". The wing span is up to 49 feet (the same as A-1). The B-1 is used as a basic approach (i.e., the larger Beech Baron, Gates Lear Jet 28, Cessna 402). B-II = approach speed is between 91 and 121 knots. We are going up a little bit larger for the wing span - between 49 and 79 feet. (King Air, 200's, G1, and Cessna 2 & 3). Just because you build an airport to B-II standards doesn't mean that these airplanes are going to use it. But keep in mind that the larger the airport, the larger aircraft you get. AM Towers. We hired a consultant from Denver that was a specialist in radio towers and electronics associated with them. He came up with- 1) Reconfiguring the tower array to eight 100 foot towers. Lower the towers but you need more towers; 2) The other option was to relocate the existing towers to another site, or 3) Use another station's towers to broadcasts. These are the things we looked at and identified some of the costs associated with that. From that study, the preferred alternative was to reconfigure the existing array with lower towers. The cost of doing that is about $400,000. That has been reflected in all the cost estimates. That is shown as a 100% local cost. At least there is a way to lower the towers without having the big expensive cost of relocating the whole radio station. The Forecast Section (referring to overhead) - we looked at some of the things related to that. We first established baseline guidance, i.e., how many aircraft you have on the site now, we talked to local airport operators to find out how many people based their aircraft here, the aircraft mix - what kinds of aircraft are using the airport, the different kinds of aircraft based here. Then we look at how many people use the airport, i.e., local people, itinerary travels, people passing through, and the military. We also conducted a User Survey during the Fly - in last summer to get more information about how the airport is used. We surveyed 223 local pilots during that study. Some surveys were mailed out also and we received 96 responses. That helps us get a better fell for who is using the airport, how they are using it, and how many people are flying in and out. The results indicated they all owned small aircraft; 29 indicated they based their aircraft at the airport either in hangars or tie downs' they average one passenger 50% of the time; 41 indicated they would be interested in leasing hangars - that helps us identify the need and space requirements for hangars; and the average maximum rental rate they would pay is $108.00 We also asked why they used the Kalispell City Airport. The responses were: people flying in, fuel business, and flight instruction, etc. It was pretty evenly spread out. From that information we predicted future growth. We identify every five-year increment over twenty years. We used a number of sources to do that. We first look at the historic data, i.e., how the airport has grown, loss of people or travelers. We found that historically it has grown, then declined, then been pretty flat. That is reflected by the condition of the facility. If you have a better maintained, better quality runway and infrastructure, you will have more people using your airport. We looked at the FAA Terminal Area Forecasts. There are conducted and researched by the FAA. The statistics are published annually nationwide. From that we can establish some general trends - they are showing fairly flat growth, not real steep growth in general aviation. But they are showing growth. We also looked at the Forecast Section of the Master Plan done by Glacier Park International Airport nearly two years. Then we looked at some of the industry trends, basically the General Aviation manufacturers Association organization. From that we have identified a 1.9% growth. Not real steep growth but it's proved to be some growth otherwise we wouldn't be providing the facilities you need here should things grow faster than that. I would like to think we could provide a good facility here. (Showing overhead) - Regarding environmental concerns, in this study we are looking at just identifying the potential of some impacts. Should development proceed on and we build or expand the airport in this area, an environmental Assessment will identify more of the environmental problems and concerns. (Showing overhead) - From our analysis, we ranked alternative #2 with the highest score; alternative #1 came in second, alternate #4, the generic site, ranked 3`d, the B-1 airport ranked 4th, and the "No-go" ranked the lowest. That is the way we rated them and basically that is our opinion. We are hoping to get some input from the different facets involved - the State Aeronautics people. We want to get a general sample of this. Tim showed more overheads with specific details of each of the alternatives and how they arrived at their conclusions. (Those are attached as Exhibit A). This ends our formal presentation. We wanted to share where we are at right now and I can give you an overview of where we see this going. We are planning to start into the next phase which is the financial analysis. Normally we would expect the city to pick a site they like the best and we would base our financial information on that specific site. However, this situation is a little bit different so in this case we will base our financial information on more than one site and the study well reflect that. There will not be one preferred alternative at the end of the study. I think that is what the FAA is looking for also - it needs a little bit more study. We are planning to work on the financial section then have another public meeting probably early in August - tentatively August 9th. We will meet with the city council and have a public meeting to present and discuss the alternatives and talk about some of the financial issues. Then from there we will have a formal public hearing 30 days later where we will present the results of these studies. That is what we have lined up for the remainder of the study. At this time, if you have any comments or questions, I would appreciate it if you would come to the microphone so we can get a clear recording of you question. Art Thompson: Airport Advisory Board. You didn't talk very much about the summation number at the bottom of the matrix diagram. It looks like there is a substantial numerical difference between Alt. #2 at $178 and Alt. #1 at $162, but I don't think I recognize what this really represents in terms of how clear the separation is between those two alternatives. Tim Orthmeyer: Referring to Matrix (showing overhead). I think what you will find is that can change a little bit based on column 3 where you have some flexibility. If you will look a little closer and compare the columns here. If you look at the totals of column 1 and column 2, they are only two apart; and if you look at column 3, they are only one apart. The real difference is the weighted score. So something up in the column is making the difference. It is a little bit subjective. Art Thompson: The issue in my mind is that before we got to studying the matrix with you, we had a pretty intuitive feeling about what was really going to work in this situation. It happens to agree with the one you come up with, the one that had the highest score. Based on prior experience in other locations and studies, is this numerical difference you show here objective enough to verify our intuitive feeling that this is the right choice? Tim Orthmeyer: I think is it. Unknown: When you did your cost breakdowns in the various plans, did you consider the affect of moving the runway 5 degrees and the increased values of the real estate adjoining the highway? When you realign the runway, you are moving the runway away from the highway and increasing the quantity of highway frontage land the city may own. Did you look at how that increased in value? You have more land that is a higher dollar price per square foot than the land you are acquiring. Tim Orthmeyer: Increased in value? You have more land available on that side. If you look at the existing alignment, we've got quite a bit of city -owned land to the south. By moving the alignment farther to the west, we start moving away from the city land and start picking up more private land that we have to purchase. I thought there would be more value in that land gained at a higher price that would offset the cost of buying more land to the west. We have more analysis we are going to do to on the land toward the west. Our appraiser has not been able to get to that and he hasn't looked at the cost of Alt.#2 yet. But I thought by moving it, that we would gain so much highway property that we wouldn't have to buy, that it would offset - we would loose the cost of the higher price land and gain less valuable land to the west. I thought there would be more of a significant difference, but we gain so much property going to the west, that it is still more expensive. Unknown: When you calculated the bottom line, i.e., the cost of the project, did you ...when you are moving the runway to the west on the south end, did you add a value in for the increased value of the land along the highway? Tim Orthmeyer: No we didn't. That is a good point. Maybe that is something we need to factor in. Unknown: Well, the price per square foot of the land on the highway is far greater than the land that you are taking. I think you should look at that. It might affect the overall... Tim Orthmeyer: So you are saying that by having more property still available on the highway side, it would be more valuable? Unknown: Well, the highway frontage property is likely to sell per square foot as opposed to the acreage you are going to buy per acre. Tim Orthmeyer: Ok, now I understand. We are going to take a closer look at that. Ryan Horner: Regarding Atl. #4, if you were to go to another site and actually build another facility, what would happen to the current airport and to the businesses that are there? Tim Orthmeyer: That is something that hasn't been given a great deal of consideration in the study so far. There would definitely be an impact. There would be an impact to a lot of the airport users, people who own hangars, businesses on the airport, etc. Some of the costs we are a showing as project associated costs but not essential costs such as helping the relocation or buying of a business, etc. We are showing that there is some financial commitment to help offset the cost of moving - that is a non -essential cost. Art Thompson: Would it be fair to add the board's feeling about the generic site? Our impression is that it's there because the FAA asked us to do a comparison with a generic site. But we consider it a non -option because an inconvenient airport to the City of Kalispell is an irrelevancy. The reason that this airport is valuable to this city is it's proximity to the city and all of its services. We would say that if the generic site was seriously considered for any reason by anybody, it should be dismissed because the better option is just to beef up Glacier Park International. Tim Orthmeyer: We agree with that. Thanks for sharing that. We had failed to mention that. When the FAA considers funding the project they may say "we can build a new airport for $4 million but it may cost $6 million to keep the airport at the existing site. So we are only going to spend $4 million on the existing site if you want to keep the airport there." I can't speak for the FAA, but they may say that. Just as a side not, the FAA has not committed to any of these alternatives yet. They have committed to doing the study and they felt it was worth doing further evaluation here. After the study is done and the results are in, then the city and the FAA should probably get together and determine where they want to go from there. I'm not saying what that will be because there are a lot of factors to consider, but I thing there is a good chance the City of Kalispell could realize the benefit of some federal money if we can get things done right. Jack Archibald: I think that in some ways you've overstated the generic site. 1) Finding land that would be suitable - it almost sounds like you can go out and pick it, and you can't. 2) I've said this in every meeting I've ever been at, the whole key to this airport is location, location, location. That is what has made the airport, it is what made it busy and al alternate - this study kind of shows a generic site as a little too good and it won't be. There will be problems with getting the land and getting the location and as far as wind direction, even the Glacier International Airport has cross winds all the time. You just can't go pick it out. Tim Orthmeyer: Thank you I appreciate those comments. If we hadn't considered a generic location, sometime down the road somebody would ask us if we had. We are making a lot of assumptions when looking at the generic location and maybe they are a little bit better than reality, but without a specific site in mind, it is just our best guess at this point. Art Thompson: What is the realistic time schedule for completion of the study? To fit with the FAA's time schedule, when could we see some blacktop? Tony Feilzer: Completion of this study will have to be followed by an environmental assessment and land acquisition. Time Orthmeyer: Now this is assuming - we are making assumptions here - that it is something other than the B-1 alternate and the $1 million city option is going to happen. Now say we get the study done on schedule in early September. We have our public hearing in early September and it is done. I don't know how much time the city or the FAA requires for review and processing, but say Alt. #2 gets selected. We could get started with an environmental assessment in September/October and that will take about one year to complete. Land acquisition - you are going to have 40 parcels of land to acquire. Even if things went smooth with land acquisition and we had all willing sellers, you could probably do it in a year/12 months. If we had some parcels that take more time during negations and we decide we have to condemn some parcels, land acquisitions could take up to three years with that many people. But if we selected the B-1 city option, you could be paving next summer. Art Thompson: I've heard that before but that was in reference to this summer. Well, you've answered pretty well. I think what we are really doing here by way of commentary is really meeting both this communities and the FAA's concern that we are planning something that is going to be good 20/30/40 years hence. Rather than doing a mickey-mouse job or no job at all. We don't think that we can afford to do either one of those. I would make a plea for whatever part of the process can be expedited. Part of that is selfish - we've been on duty for five years. It was scheduled to be a one-year job and we're running out of the ability to stay the course. But we're here. Aside form that, the city deserves to move ahead for its own reasons. I don't think it needs to be expedited to the detriment of doing the right thing, but it needs to be expedited. We need to have a motion here. It is amazing what has happened just by getting this fencing in place in terms of recognition by the local people that something is really happening on this airport. When we get to the stage where we are really doing something on the ground, it is going to be reinforced. People are going to realize that hit is really happening and a lot of people who are concerned about what is happening around the airport will begin to understand what their options are. They need that. Those are the people who are in business along the highway, the real estate concerns, city government, etc. We need not to drag this out forever and ever. Dave Gabbert: You mentioned something about wetlands? Assume that we took Alt. #2 and went forward with wanting to buy the additional land, what would you expect the EIS to say. Could we select Alt. #2 and then all of a sudden find out that something is going to come out in the EIS that would preclude our ability to go forward or do you feel that the environmental issues are pretty solid and reasonable? Tim Orthmeyer: From our initial analysis, we don't see any show stoppers with any of them. Obviously there are some neighborhood impacts on the existing alignment, but we don't see anything that would really stop the project. We don't have any significant wetlands that we can see. Mike Ferguson: State Aeronautics Division. We have made our position clear that we would like to see this airport developed. We think it has great potential. We think like you all do, but you have to jump through these stupid hoops to satisfy the FAA about this alternative airport. Nobody believes in it and nobody wanted ti, and they have to spend lots of money proving that you don't want it. We hate to see that but we know it is part of the requirements when yo are doing any airport project. We are able to help with some of the local community sponsor's share of the funding through both low interest loans and grants. The program we have now is somewhat new and it is going very well and is helping a lot of airports in the state with their local 10% share. A lot of times it is not a lot of money, but it is essential to get projects kicked off. We use this airport all the time. We use it annually for our mountain search pilot clinic. Over the years we have been very much involved in brining different tour groups into Kalispell because quite frankly it is the only airport in the state that can accommodate those kind of things satisfactorily. There are others who can do it, but through a great deal of logistics and added expense. So we are really committed to seeing this airport thrive. I do have one correction I would like to make. With all due respect "through the fence operations" are permitted by the FAA. They frown upon it, but there is nothing prohibiting it so long as there is reasonable compensation. That is in the FAA Advisory Circular. So that may ease some of the concern. In state airports, we believe in "through the fence operations." It helps the airport and we do get compensation for it. We have 15 state-owned airports. We like to encourage that but I know the FAA does not. However, it is permissible. Gil Johnson: What is "through thefence operations'? I'm notfamiliarwith that term. Tim Orthmeyer: Explaining "through the fence operations" - that is when you have private property adjacent to a public airport with access to the airport. In other words, if you have private property with a hangar on your property and you have access to the airport where you can taxi out and use the airport, basically you have exclusive use to publicly - owned property. It is not prohibited, but it is discouraged. What makes it acceptable is if you pay some fee for access. It has to do with fairness. The FAA is really strong on being fair to all the users of the airport and that would give you an unfair advantage. Gil Johnson: How would that affect our airport? Unknown: Both FBO's are on private property and they both have access to the airport facility. Under the "through the fence" rules, the FAA really doesn't like to see that .Basically it allows uncontrolled access to the airport facility and that is undesirable. Tim Orthmeyer: At most airports that are FAA developed, i.e., the hangars and FBO, they lease the property form the airport owners. At Glacier Park International the FBO's lease the ground in order to have a hangar and operate. That is how it is deemed fair. Gil Johnson: So what it sounds like to me is you want to lengthen the runway, get rid of the two FBO's, and spend a lot of money and fence everything in? Tim Orthmeyer: No, we are not saying get rid of the FBO's. We are encouraging the FBO's to be a part of the airport, but what might happen is that the city may ask them to pay a fee to use the airport if they have private property. See that makes if fair then. They don't have exclusive use of public property. It's a fairness thing. If you have property that you own a house on and put a hangar on, then maybe the airport or city would aks you to pay a fee to rent - an access fee. Tony Feilzer: The bottom line is that before the FAA would approve any grant on Kalispell City Airport, there would have to an approved "through the fence" agreement between the city and the "through the fence" operators. I don't have any idea what would be a part of that agreement, but it would have to be approved before any federal money could be spent on this airport. Gil Johnson: What is the fee? Does anybody know? Unknown: A nominal lease rate fee. It is kind of a discrimination issue. So if you are out there and you are not paying a similar fee structure, then you have an advantage. So somehow equalization of that fee structure has to happen. Art Thompson: I want to point out that we have a little bit of a unique situation here. Both of the fixed based operators are on owned property even though they are right on the airport - they own their property fee and clear. I is fee simple property, it is not city property. They are not going to be on a lease with the city. Historically they have had a relationship with the city right along and we expect that will be formalized in some way that will be satisfactory to the FAA Dave Hoerner: Red Eagle Aviation(?) Right now there is a fee and in fact there always has been. We are not using it free, we pay a fee. It is nominal but we still pay. Art Thompson: Our FBO's have acted as agents for the city in several respects over the years. So the relationship has been good and 1 expect it will continue to be good. Dave Downey: President of Local Hangar of the Montana Pilots Association. It is hard to be unbiased when you are a pilot. It is awfully nice to be able to fly out of the Kalispell City Airport but I don't think that is justification for having Kalispell City Airport. But I don't think it has been mentioned here tonight about the economic impact this has for the city of Kalispell. Is that going to be part of your study? Tim Orthmeyer: We are not specifically looking at the economic impact. We understand and realize there is significant economic impact to the community by having the airport. There are a lot of studies that have been done in other communities around the country that show a significant benefit to having the airport. We aren't providing that as part of this study. I understand the Board has talked to somebody about getting one done. Art Thompson: We recognize the value of that. The problem with doing a formal study is expenses and it can not under current conditions be included in the FAA contract for the Master Plan Study and we understand that. Nevertheless, we have had some conversations with Greg Davis, Professor at Flathead Valley Community College and also with the Bureau of Economic Research at the university of Montana. Again it is an expensive thing to do a full study. The only semblance of a study is now 20 years. It showed a $1.5 million economic benefit estimate at that time and on an inflation basis over twenty years, it would be twice that. So we are currently probably experiencing a $3 million economic benefit to this valley and it is anticipated that could be verified by a formal study. It might in fact, by some estimates including people from Glacier Park, be as much as $5 million currently and that is without improvements to the airport. Gil Johnson: It seems to me that these studies are going to go on and they are necessary but is there anybody we can talk to to get a couple of things done on the runway, i.e., the numbers painted, a sweeper to come in and take the rocks off the runway, etc? At least improve it in some way? Some of the feeders like Fed Ex. And the small airlines come in and use our airport, I see them all the time. They can't get into Glacier because it is foggy, etc. Those are expensive machines and so are the light aircraft and it is really hard on the propellers. I don't know if you can do anything about it or if anybody here can, but I would at least like to see the numbers painted and maybe a sweeper go down the runway. I don't want to put a lot of money into this thing if we are going to change it, but a small improvement would be nice. Lorraine White: I've been to a lot of these meetings and I always hear "down the road" for things to be done. My problem is that there is $1 million in the city coffers for the airport. I'm wondering if that money can be tapped before/after/during/while we are waiting for the FAA to do something, can we use that money to sweep the runway? Can we use it to paint numbers? If the decision is the 5 degree angle, can we put the paving out to 3,600 feet first and then move it out to 4,300 and on to 4,700? Why are we waiting with this $1 million? I know the interest must be great at 10% but I say "take this money, we've already set it aside for the airport. It was our money in the beginning." They are out there building those softball courts and that money was set aside at the same time as the airport money. They are making great headway on their fields. I would like to see somebody think in terms of the $1 million - what can we do with it constructively moving toward FAA commitment or eventually B-1 or B-2? Use it now and get something done. Dale Harr: City Councilman. I would like to just clarify a couple of things regarding the maintenance. We do have a budget, we have the fencing budget, we are looking at hiring a part-time manager and I'm sure that we can find a way to do some maintenance that you alluded to - at least get the gravel off and paint the numbers. But another issue is the $1 million. We have committed the $1 million but that money is in the property where the Daily Fields were. As of late last week when we were to open the bids for the sale of the three acres north of the Rosauer site which is under construction, we didn't receive one bid. So the money isn't in the bank. The commitment is there and we have the 10+ acres that will net that amount in some way at some point. We have not had a meeting yet on the bid opening and the fact that there weren't any bids. So we are kind of back to the drawing board. It is not that we want to procrastinate or take any more time. We are as anxious as all of you are to move this thing forward and get a good decision made. The city is committed. We've assured you that there is $1 million. It will be there, but it isn't there to spend now. We do have a budget and we are trying to increase that. I think we've adopted a new fee schedule and there is going to be a part-time manager. That money will flow in. But the committee can take that up and get some maintenance done. Mike Ferguson: We cant's remember which state just developed a matrix for a low- cost economic impact study for an airport. We'll find out what we can about that and get a copy. Art Thompson: I believe it is New York State and I believe it is state-wide rather than just one airport. I made some inquiry about that. The State University System and New York State was involved in that and it's an on -going thing. They will do one or a few at a time, but they are going to do it as a state-wide program. I think it was funded by the legislature there. Mike Ferguson: I don't think that is the one we are talking about. I believe it was a southern state like Louisiana or Georgia. It had numerical data - number of based aircraft, number of tie downs, etc., and was all tied into the economic impact of the airport. Art Thompson: The methodology is there. Oregon has done a pretty good job through their Aeronautics Division for a number of different airports in Oregon. CLOSING Tim Orthmeyer: If there are no other comments, we really appreciate everyone coming out tonight. We appreciate all your comments. Just to remind you if you would like to provide some written comments or information please send it to the City Manager by July 15th and we'll get it incorporated into the project and the study. Thanks for coming. Meeting Adjourned at 8:45 p.m.