Loading...
09/21/09 Eckels CommentsCity Council Comments - Steve Eckels September 21, 2009 Dear Mayor Kennedy and City Council: Thank you for the opportunity to address the Council on the subject of reducing Airport Noise. I would like to introduce my mother who is visiting from Bayfield, Wisconsin. When I mentioned the issue of airport noise to her, she said we need something that is unambiguous and common sense, and Grandma is almost always right! She also stated that the "sound of silence" is the essence of small town America. I was here one month ago on August 17 to assist with the newly proposed noise ordinance_ I am here tonight to share reflections on that meeting, and to request to stay informed on the progress of the new ordinance if any. ---My first reflection is that the original ordinance 19-10 was very wise. It states that "any unnecessary noise that disturbs any person" is a disturbance of the peace. This is common sense to me. ---Also, why did adjunct city attorney, Hickel use templates from Texas and Tennessee instead of one from Montana which is guided by the Montana Constitution?? My first exhibit is an article from Sunday's Interlake regarding the dip in air traffic at Glacier Airport. As I have testified before, the availability of Glacier Airport for take offs and landings for small planes makes it "unnecessary" for training flights to take place over the city. The problem or "rub" is that Red Eagle Aviation pays the city for the use of the City Airport, and to ask them to move the training flights could seem unfair because of the additional cost time incurred. My questions for the council are: ---How much money does Red Eagle pay the city for the use of the airport? ---Does the city really need the money generated by Red Eagle Aviation? ---If Red Eagle was willing to move training fights to Glacier, why couldn't we adjust their fee to compensate for the extra time and fuel costs they incur? ---If Red Eagle was willing to move training to Glacier, why couldn't we adjust their fee to compensate for the extra time and fuel costs they incur? (I am determined that the result of this effort is a Win -Win situation. ---The solution seems simple: compensate Red Eagle for the time and cost incurred by training at Glacier. ---In exchange, the hundreds of residents in the downtown area would be able to enjoy what grandma calls "the essence of small town America" -------------------------------------------------------------- A second reflection is that the city is growing and the airport is surrounded. With the growth of our population, the location of the city airport seems out dated. With the construction of Glacier Airport some of the function of the airport is out dated. I don't see how the city and the airport can both expand in the same space. I realize that the city airport is a convenience for general aviation, tourists and aristocrats, so one solution to the noise issue is to use the city airport for general aviation, tourists and aristocrats, but limit all commercial flights including training flights to Glacier airport. ----------------------------------------------------------- Finally, in the meantime, city code 19-10 still applies to airport noise. It does not require a lawyer to interpret it, although our city attorney told me personally that it does apply to aircraft. One reason we need unambiguous rules and regulations is exemplified by the following: ---Several Saturdays ago I called the police and requested that an officer make an appearance at the airport regarding noise. The officer did so. He also called me and advised me on how to work with the council on behalf of the "silent majority" of residents who are seeking the essence of small town living. ---After several Saturday went by, I requested an officer make an appearance at the airport regarding Helicopter noise. This officer told me that the ordinance 19-10 did not apply to aircraft and offered to have the city attorney call me. ---The ordinance interpreted by Charlie Harbol and myself DOES apply to aircraft noise. I would like to know WHO TOLD THE OFFICER THAT THE ORDINCANCE DOES NOT APPLY TO AIRCRAFTM ---------------- I hope that my thoughts in some way make a positive contribution to this complex and important issue. Thank You ----Steve Eckels I � prt �. t, I ,traffic �d s��1 ThejQai Inter Laker - s .The, number of passengers=1 T OOQ i who flew intio and .out of Glacier'- ,. Park h ternatioiial Airport in August,, was down fironi the same month anL 2008 by 38 percents art o, the decline is use the airport was closed for. days, A for. 'runova ebualdin but I Y re, , airport director.Cindi Martin_said air carriers Aso^haye reduced the, num, be; of flights nationwide r The airlines have been cutidd bac1 s fors two years The ,Aar Transport ���, As�oc�aton, the trade.group,fox big-!;, j U-S airline,,s, esatos -that cari L6 - wilt bffer,fewer. th�si_ 12.5 b1lJion seatY "miles fi the_ fourili quarter this year: That's not much made :thaw the leo 12 Y billion late iu` 2001; after the Sep 11 £erroi�ist "Travel is down nationwide," Mar tin. said, '"; S1?ie s aid the decrease in rocal sites fratrelers`probally is a'combinatIon of runway. closures and fewer travelers; oVeralL' In.September 2008 there Were 335 departures from Glacier Park"k `` Ti�ternati62]a1; for September 2009,i there are only M scheduled depax� '. � tares, a 13.'l percent decrease:, , , The'airport .also tracks thenumberr of flights between citypairs, such as ,Salt Lake' and Kalispell.,..r.a r> 1 1n September. 2008;: there were 148 departures ta'_Sa1t. Ak4 §t This. month,;; there are.. 30 dpartures scheduled h Howe"ver; tits number of departures t , ' to Denvdr and Seattle have,remaifiW tl3ie same and there_ was an increased number:bfflighfis to_Las vegas r ;luly so tar has been the busiest Ynontll with 26,320 passengers at Glacier Park International Airport: This was a`: I .>17 p(,�i•cent decrease f om.July. M, > In'2008; 186,507 people flewp. into and �F : 'outof Glacier Park International `iAix :port So far b1 i 2009 112;792.:have used: the airli9rt The Assocrafed Press contributed to $; this `stc)fy