Loading...
Comments Received After 11/30/09rage i of i Theresa White From: Chuck Flynn [caaflynn@bresnan.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 11:28 AM To: Theresa White Subject: Kalispell City Airport To: Kalispell City Council members It has been brought to my attention that the Kalispell City Council is reviewing the need for continued flight operations at your Kalispell City Airport. Those opposing this airport wrongly assert that this airport only exists for your local pilots. I am a private pilot based in Helena and flew into your Kalispell City airport twice in 2009. On both occasions, my passengers and I walked to and ate in nearby restaurants. I also purchased fuel from Red Eagle Aviation on this airport. I made it a point to obey the local noise abatement take off and landing instructions as most pilots do in and around this airport. In 2010, we will be flying to the Kalispell City Airport 2 to 3 times during which time we will spend money with your local restaurants and purchase aviation fuel at the airport. I have not nor will I ever fly into Glacier County due to it's location. I have many choices in Montana as to where I fly and spend my money. I will continue to support your local businesses as long as I am able to fly into Kalispell City. This airport brings visitors and revenue to your city by providing nearby hotel accommodations, good restaurants, and a variety of shops. Your city is a great tourist destination! The Kalispell City Airport enables pilots from around the state to fly in and enjoy your city and at the same time bring much needed revenue to your local businesses. As safety and noise are always a concern, I encourage the city council to publish requested landing and departure instructions that will insure safe operations and address local concerns with noise levels. Publications can be distributed to Montana aviation groups such as the Montana Pilots Assn., Montana Recreational Pilots Assn., and to the various flying clubs throughout Montana. Private pilots understand the need for safety and quiet in and around the local airports they fly into and will support your needs for your airport's operations. I hope you will continue to support and maintain this airport in the years to come. Thank you for your consideration! Chuck Flynn Helena, MT. 406-457-9479 Aircraft: N4689J 1/27/2010 Theresa White From: skyhawk@windermere.com Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 3:08 PM To: Theresa White Subject: Kalispell City Airpot Hello Council, I have been associated with the supporters of Kalispell City Airport since the late eighties, and have spoken at council meetings and written letters to the editor. My main point is that Kalispell City Airport has always been a wonderful neighbor: 1. Nuturing soccer and softball teams and their eventual movement to other sites. 2. Mostly not noticing, or, at least, forgiving the odors which, daily, emanate from the Waste Treatment Plant. 3. Trying its best to alter aircraft patterns for noise abatement, when receiving complaints from others, who later moved into the airport neighborhood. 4. Dealing with and improving, sometimes soggy ground. 5. Maintaining an enviable safety record. 6. Supporting local businesses, already on, or near, the site and drawing in more business enterprises to Kalispell (Hilton Garden Inn, flying vacationers, helicopter support and flight instruction, etc.) We can only wish that all of our neighbors were able to support themselves (Enterprise Fund), and even give something back. If someone offers employment opportunities for others, supports themselves, does public service (Young Eagles, Emergency Medical support, etc.) they are a valuable assets and good neighbors. I hope the council recognizes my main point and will act on all of the other reasons for maintaining and improving Kalispell Airport, rather than "run it out of town." Thank you for thinking about this, Lorraine Lorraine Yde Realtor Windermere Lakeside -Kalispell 866-844-0104 Office 406-212-5880 Cell www.Windermere.com Page 1 of 1 Theresa White From: bert lenon [bertlenon@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 3:52 PM To: Theresa White Subject: FW: city airport From: bertlenon@hotmail.com To: manager@kalispell.com Subject: city airport Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:35:47 -0700 Dear Ms Hovington, These are but a few of my concerns about city airport; 1. first and formost it should be VOTED on by the city residents, 2. what I could gather off the city documents there's 74 airplanes and 74 ownners, that seams like a lot of benefits for a very few citizen's, 3. the airport has $90,000 income of which $58,000 is wages, plus medical etc.(for airport manager)just over breaking evan I would guess, 4. the city could do a lot more with 90 to150 acres that would benifit more of the people in Kalispell, reasonable building sites for low income familys, you coud give 300 familys building lots, that could serve 1200 plus citizens of Kalispell, anyway I could go on and on but I hope the city will reflect on how to serve it's constituants interest's first and best. thanks for hearing me out. Bert Lenon 56 year resident and want to be proud of it. Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get_t__now_._ 1/26/2010 Blue And White Motel, Inc. 640 East Idaho Street Mailing Address: P.O. Box 249 Kalispell, Montana U.S.A. 59903-0249 January 25, 2010 Dear Madame Mayor and Council, Switchboard/Office: 406-755-4311 24 Hour Reservations 1-800-382-3577 Fax Number: 406-755-4330 I have two questions to pose concerning the airport renovation: Email: blue@digisys.net www.blu-white.com 1. How many local laborers will be hired for reconstruction and upgrading? Remember that Kalispell has over 10% unemployment. 2. In the long term, what specific economic benefit will there be for Flathead Valley? I realize that this money is from the FAA and not a stimulus package and would benefit us greatly. I also realize that moving the airport is very ludicrous. I am a local long term resident of this valley and I live and work in Kalispell. Sincerely, _;`:� ��.1,'vf. �e�` ifs ✓.�'�c �' � �, rage 1 of 1 Theresa White From: Scott Scott [maxwellsnortsnort@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 7:26 PM To: bidcaller65@hotmail.com; f.thomas@centurytel.net; zatmike@centurytel.net; m.paulson@bresnan.net; maryiverson@bresnan.net; hammerquistl2@yahoo.com; fredh@bresnan.net; robertt@montana.com; fschroeter@centurytel.net; kyv59903@centurytel.net; wisebunch@bresnan.net; joanskare@centurytel.net; peg gylee@marketyourart.com; mjdardis@yahoo.com; crystal lynn seiler; paulinem@cyberport.net; mojocat@aboutmontana.net; admason@centurytel.net; jpress@centurytel.net; douise@gmail.com; susanneoconnor@centurytel.net; roxiebrothers@centurytel.net; Scott Davis; phi l.cjpllc@yahoo.com; jo- blake@bresnan.net; tomsmithlin@hotmail.com; linda397@centurytel.net; siblerud@bresnan.net; Marye Flowers; joblake@bresnan.net; ec_kels@guitarmusicman.com; theprofessor52@yahoo.com; joann_vitovec2003gyahoo.com; marilynmm@bresnan.net; djeep@bresnan.net; wmcmichael@semitool.com; rgmikelson@gmail.com; phil_jerrig@yahoo.com; nkimball@dailyinterlake.com; kuhlpan@cyberport.net; Theresa White; Theresa White; Jane Howington Subject: FW: City Airport Members and Non-members, here's a few good questions, can anyone answer them? I'm sending them on to the city. Scott, Do you know if the city is still taking questions on the airport? I've been so involved with the issues at work and the retirement thing that I haven't thought of much else. Last night, or this morning about 2 a.m. actually, a couple of thoughts came to mind with regard to the airport deal. They're always talking about the airport as being an "enterprise fund" and how it pays for itself. Well, my first question is what exactly is an enterprise fund in the city's definition. I have a good idea of what it is --a separate bookkeeping entity from the rest of Kalispell's finances --but I would like to see the numbers of how the airport pays for itself. The city should have monthly/quarterly/annual financial statements --balance sheets and profit and loss statements --that show how the airport is actually paying it's own way. Have you seen anything like this? If they are still taking questions to address at their next meeting, I would like to add the following to the questions: (1) How does the city define "enterprise fund", (2) Show us the last 2-3 years financial statements that indicate that the airport actually pays for itself, (3) How does the revenue generated by the airport compare to the tax revenue that would be generated if this property were used for residential purposes? The information presented at the meeting last night left me thinking the only reasonable solution to the city airport debacle is to remove this contentious issue from the city agenda and move Red Eagle and the other private airplanes out to GPI. Let these pilots deal with GPI who are informed and knowledgeable on these issues. (I don't think they want that.) I get the feeling that the pilots have been calling all the shots and walking all over these city government people for a long time and just can't come to grips with the fact that somebody has the audacity to challenge them now. They feel a bit threatened --hence, Scott Richardson's tirade last night. Oops, didn't mean to get quite so wordy! Anyway, if the city is still taking questions and comments, is there a particular place to post it? Thanks again for all your work. Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now. 1/20/2010 Jeff Walla, Civil Engineer of STELLING ENGINEERS, INC. of the Kalispell office called Mr. Jenson the Polson Airport Manager, who was going to speak at Quiet Skies Public Meeting this Thursday the 14th. At the Outlaw Inn. And told him I don't want you to speak at that meeting I don't want you to contradict what Stelling Engineers has told the city of Kalispell. I called Mr. Walla and asked him why he called Mr. Jenson and advised him not to speak at the Public Meeting. He said Mr. Jensen is a client of theirs and he didn't tell him not to speak at the meeting. He said he inform Mr. Jenson that he wasn't speaking to the City Council and suggested that Mr. Eckels lied to Mr. Jensen. I said Mr. Jensen knew he wasn't speaking to the City Counsel for over a week and it was even in the news paper, and what business is that of yours anyway? Again he said Mr. Jenson and the Polson Airport is there client. I then told Mr. Walla that Mr. Eckels talked to Mr. Jenson at great lengths about Quiet Skies and what the meeting was about. And Mr. Jensen was excited about coming up to speak. And today he told Mr. Eckels that you said Stelling didn't want him to talk and contradict what Stelling Engineers has told the city. Mr. Walla then hung up on me. Question: 1. What does (Walla) Stelling Engineers don't want the City to know? 2. What's Mr. Walla or (Stelling Engineers) motive to silence Mr. Jensen from telling the public/City about airport management and how they determined to locate there airport? 3. Why would Stelling engineers (Walla) not want to re -locate the City Airport? Because of this action, the city Council should not allow Stelling Engineers to have anything more to do with the Engineering Issues or drafting of any future E.A.'s of the City Airport issue. &If City Council Comments January 9,2009 Contact Information Vince Jennison 406-883-2482 - Poison Airport Manager David Cole - 406-841-2770 - Community Development; State of MT Gary Gates - 406-449-5271 x 32 - Airports division FAA Brief introduction Originally came to the council regarding regulation of training flights by Red Eagle Aviation- U4 000- Was asked by three city officials to step W my participation. 1. Council man - concerned about quality of life on the south side 2. City plannner - concerned about housing grants that may be in jepardy if airport is expanded. 3. Policeman - concerned about public saftey, drug smuggling, homeland security. So, here I am here as a face representing the "silent majority". I have made errors: last summer in an effort to create good will I left a note for the owner of Red Eagle saying, "Great job". What I should have said was, thank you for moving our operations to GPI for two days a week, by doing so you have made a 28% improvement. He has used the note against me ever since. Would like to invite council members to a special meeting, Thursday 7:00- 9:00 at the Winchester room at the Outlaw Inn. Special guests incude Vince Jennison - the manager of Poison Airport and Dave Heine a real estate broker. Jeff Walla of Stelling Engineers called Vince and told him that, "we don't want you saying anything the contradicts what we have been telling the city." As an excuse for not coming, they concocted the story that Vince thought is was a city council meeting. This is a lie. Items of discussion and Possible Ratification ---Clarify questions such as how many legal Kalispell residents keep their airplanes at city airport is a historic district compatible with an airport affected zone? and many, many more unanswered questions ---Legal voting residents should be given primary consideration in city policy. If so, speakers must give their legal residential address? ---The advantages of having the airport operated by the city vs. a separate entity such as red eagle. How to manage its' airport: Vince Jennison ---The next EA - should be "an original work" (David Cole: Head of Community development at Dept of Commerce 406-841-2770) should include - (Gary Gates, consulting) ---firm must be independent - not able to bid on job ---cost of moving Red Eagle to GPI? ---cost of moving all tennants to new location ---time needed to clear court challenges and then build 4 years from time of land acquisition ---At what point to we determine expansion is a "dead horse"/not going to happen? ---What else could the land be used for? ---Survey of legal residents ---Appraisal of the Land Ask for evidence from aviators regarding GPI safety. Has anyone seen written evidence that GPI is unsafe or inconvenient for general aviation? Red Eagle Aviation; appears "ungovernable". They pay the "manager's salary". Development should be the job of the planning dept. and the manager should run the operations. 01-04-2010 KALISPELL CITY RESIDENTS AIRPORT SCOPING QUESTIONS FOR THE KALISPELL CITY COUNSEL, MAYOR, AND CITYMANAGER. 1. SHOULD KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT BE EXPANDED AND RELOCATED FURTHER OUT OF TOWN? 2. SHOULD KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT BE EXPANDED AT ITS PRESENT LOCATION? 3. STUDIES HAVE DOCUMENTED SEVERAL ALTERNATIVE AIRPORT LOCATIONS, ALL OF WHICH WOULD BE LESS COSTLY TO CONSTRUCT, WERE YOU AWARE OF SUCH STUDIES? 4. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE CITY PROPERTY AT THE AIRPORT LOCATION IS BEING USED AT IT'S: HIGHEST AND BEST USE AS AN AIRPORT? 5. DO WE NEED TWO AIRPORTS?? 6. ARE YOU AWARE THAT GLACIER PARK INTERNATIONAL SAID THEY WOULD ACCEPT OUR AVIATION NEEDS OUT AT THEIR AIRPORT? 7. DO YOU USE THE KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT, COUNSEL MEMBERS, MAYOR? 8. IF THE KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT WAS RELOCATED OUT SIDE OF THE CITY WOULD YOU STILL WANT IT TO BE CITY OWNED AND OPERATED OR COLLABORATE WITH THE COUNTY? 9. OR: OWNED BY THE CITY, BUT OPERATED BY (GPI) GLACIER PARK INTERNATIONAL? 10. OR: IF RELOCATED AND OWNED BY THE CITY, SHOULD THE AIRPORT BE SELF-SUPPORTING WITH NO CITY SUBSIDY? 11. SHOULD THE CITY RELOCATE THE CITY AIRPORT, SHOULD THE OLD AIRPORT PROPERTY BE SOLD? 12. ARE THERE INVESTORS TO INVEST AND RELOCATE THE AIRPORT? 13. DOES THE RESIDENTS WANT TRAINING FLIGHTS OUT OF THE CITY AIRPORT? 14. HOW MANY BUSINESSES ARE IN BUSINESS AT THE CITY AIRPORT? 15. SHOULD THE CITY AIRPORT BE LEFT JUST AS IT IS? 16. SHOULD THE CITY AIRPORT BE LEFT AS IT IS WITH SAFETY MODIFICATIONS W/O F.A.A. INVOLVEMENT? 17. SHOULD THERE BE A ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY STUDY DONE COMPARING THE EXPENSES OF VARIOUS OPTIONS OF THE KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT PROPERTY? 18. WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE LENGTHEN OF THE RUNWAY TO 4500FT. OR MORE AND MAKING IT WIDER TO ALLOW B-2 AIRCRAFT TO LAND THERE? 19. SHOULD THE F.A.A. (TAXPAYER DOLLARS, YOURS AND MINE ) SHOULD BE SPENT TO COVER THE PROJECTED EXPANSION AT THE CURRENT AIRPORT LOCATION? 20. HOW MANY FULL TIME JOBS WILL BE CREATED WITH EXPANSION OF THE CITY AIRPORT AT ITS PRESENT LOCATION, VS RELOCATING TT 21. IS THE CITY OF KALISPELL RESPONSIBLE FINANCIALLY TO TO SPONSOR THE AIRPORT? 22. CAN THE CITY AIRPORT LAND BE OFFERED FOR SALE TO A DEVELOPER? 23. HAVE YOU HAD TO SUSPEND CONVERSATION ON YOUR PROPERTY UNTIL A HELICOPTER OR ANY AIRCRAFT HAVE COME OVER? 24. WILL LARGER AND FASTER AIRCRAFT FLY OVER IF THERE IS AN EXPANSION? 25. DO YOU THINK IT'S SAFE TO HAVE HELICOPTER STUDENTS AND AIRCRAFT STUDENTS SHOULD BE FLYING AND PRACTICING OVER OUR HOMES AND SCHOOLS? 26. DID YOU BUY YOUR HOME KNOWING THE LOCATION OF THE CITY AIRPORT WILL BE EXPANDED? 27 DID YOU BUY YOUR HOME KNOWING THAT THEY WANTED TO EXPAND AND BRING IN LARGER AND FASTER AIRCRAFT AT THE CITY AIRPORT? 28 DO YOU KNOW THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO'VE USED THE CITY AIRPORT IN THE PAST YEAR, AND HAVE A TRUE AND ACCURATE ACCOUNTING OF THE INCOME TO THE CITY IT HAS DERIVED? DO YOU FEEL WE SHOULD SPEND THE F.A.A. DOLLARS BECAUSE IF WE DON'T SOMEONE ELSE WILL? 29. IS RED EAGLE INSURED TO WITHSTAND A CRASH OF ONE OF ITS PLANES, OR IS IT THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY TO COVER ALL LEGAL FEE'S AND COSTS? 30. WHAT ARE THE LIABILITY EXPENSE ISSUES OF THE CITY AIRPORT? 31. HOW MUCH ARE THE LEASE AGREEMENTS WITH RED EAGLE AND OTHER BUSINESSES ON THE AIRPORT PROPERTY? 32. HOW MUCH REVENUE IS MADE OR HOW MUCH FUEL IS SOLD AT THE AIRPORT -VS- THE REVENUE IF THE AIRPORT PROPERTY WAS SOLD? 33. WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THE FUEL OPERATIONS AT THE CITY AIRPORT? 34. WHERE CAN ONE GET A COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENTS OF BUSINESS AT THE CITY AIRPORT? 35. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME THERE WAS A FULL INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTING OF THE KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT MANAGEMENT BOOKS? 36. WHAT IS THE VALUE OF THE AIRPORT PROPERTY? 37. SHOULD WHO EVER GETS THE BID TO DO THE NEW E.A., ALSO BE ABLE TO BID ON ANY CONSTRUCTION OF THE AIRPORT? 38. WHAT ARE THE GROSS RECEIPTS FOR FUEL SALES FOR 2009 AT THE CITY AIRPORT? 39. WHAT IS THE SALES PROFIT FROM FUEL SALES FOR THE YEAR 2009? 40. HOW MANY CITY RESIDENTS KEEP PLANES AT THE CITY AIRPORT? 41. SHOULD NON-RESIDENTS HAVE A VOICE IN CITY AIRPORT POLICY? 42. HOW MANY YEARS WILL IT TAKE TO ACQUIRE THE NECESSARY LAND FOR EXPANSION? ( CONSIDERING COURT BATTLES ETC. ) 43. WHICH IS PREFERABLE TO HAVE A NEW AIRPORT IN FIVE YEARS IN THE COUNTY (WITH A HALF MILE CRASH ZONE SURROUNDING IT, OR TO TRY AND EXPAND IT AT THE CURRENT LOCATION WITCH WILL TAKE FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE THE LAND IS ACQUIRED IF IT IS EVER ACQUIRED AND THE AIRPORT EXPANSION PLAN PASSES A NEW E.A.? 44. WHAT ARE THE ODDS OF " PASSING" AN E.A. CONSIDERING THE DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE AROUND THE AIRPORT? 45. ARE A " HISTORIC DISTRICT' AND AIRPORT AFFECTED ZONE COMPATIBLE? 46. DOES THE COUNSEL KNOW THAT THE GLACIER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT COMPLETELY SAFE AND CONVENIENT FOR GENERAL AVIATION AND AVIATION TRAINING? 47. SOMEONE SPOKE AT A COUNSEL MEETING THAT GPI IS UNSAFE AND INCONVENIENT FOR AVIATION, DID THEY PRODUCE ANY WRITTEN DOCUMENTS TO BACK THERE STATEMENT UP? 48. WHO WROTE THE AIRPORT ,MANAGER'S JOB DESCRIPTION AND DOES THE COUNSEL THINK IT NEEDS CHANGED? 49. WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES OF THE CITY BEING THE FBO ) RUNNING THE AIRPORT AND SALES OF FUEL) VERSES HAVE RED EAGLE AND ASSOCIATES RUNNING M. 50. IF THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE TIME TO ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS TURNED IN BEFORE THIS JAN. 25 SCOPING MEETING WILL THE CITY HAVE ANOTHER SCOPING SESSION? IF NOT WHY? 51. WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT DECISION NOT LEFT IN THE HANDS OF THE VOTERS TO VOTE ON CLOSING IT AND MOVE IT TO GPI OR RELOCATING IT WITH F.A.A FUNDING 3 TO 5 MILES FROM TOWN? 52. WHY HAS THERE NOT BEEN STUDIES DONE ON OTHER USES OF THIS CITY OWNED PROPERTY? 53. HAS THE CITY CONSIDERED JUST ASKING PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE LOWER VALLEY AREA IF THEY WOULD COMBINE THERE PROPERTIES TO SELL FOR A RELOCATED AIRPORT? 54. ARE THERE ANY PLANS FOR TAX REBATES OR COMPENSATION FOR LAND OWNERS WHO HAVE BEEN RESTRICTED FROM SELLING AND IMPROVING THERE PROPERTIES AROUND THE CITY AIRPORT DUE TO THIS BUNGLED IDEA OF EXPANSION? QUESTIONS E-MAILED AND PHONED INTO ME FROM RESIDENTS, PLEASE RECORD AND ANSWER THE RESIDENTS QUESTIONS AT THE SCOPING MEETINGS. SCOTT DAVIS 448 STH. AVE. WEST KALISPELL, MONTANA 59901 406-752-1523 Yage 1 of 1 Theresa White From: maryiverson [maryiverson@bresnan.net] Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 4:12 PM To: Theresa White Subject: Scoping Session 11/30/09 Attachments: Scoping Session Response.doc 1/20/2010 January 3, 2010 Members of the City Council and Jane Howington, City Manager: I very much appreciated the November 30 Airport Scoping Session and the opportunity to hear the myriad of questions asked by people of varied backgrounds and opinions with regard to our Kalispell Airport. I applaud Jane Howington for suggesting it, and thank her for giving this issue the time frame we need to have all our questions answered. An issue that concerns me is the same one Steve Eckels continues to address. That is, we, the Citizens of Kalispell, want to know the addresses of the speakers at the microphone. It is a very simple and reasonable request. Giving personal addresses or, if not that, voting districts speaks to the question of whose interests are being served by our elected officials. Steve's concern is based on the fact that many aviators and aviation officials at the council meetings and scoping sessions give their business addresses, but we do not know if they are voting residents of Kalispell or not. The citizens of Kalispell have elected our council members to ensure that OUR voice is heard. If people in the outlying areas of the County want to offer an opinion on the airport, that's fine because it offers us helpful information by which we can make decisions. However, our Council members need to remember who they are serving. We want the transparency our Council has promised us. I would also like to thank Council members Kluesner, Hafferman, our Mayor Kennedy, and any others who voted to postpone the offer of the Engineering Contract to Stelling Engineers. The Council needs to address citizen concerns in good faith before we offer the contract. The argument of the others was that they cannot answer all the questions adequately without the consultants. However, offering it `seals the deal" so to speak, and, you never know, the deal may change. The fact that some Council Members wanted to offer it at this time concerns me because it seems that they are not serious about Citizens' need for adequate information. Do they think the Scoping Sessions are just a mere formality and they intend to get what they want no matter what? This is an example of how those in power lose the trust of the citizens. I would like to thank our Council, the members going out and the members coming in for their hard work and commitment to our City. Sincerely, Mary Iverson 1203 4t" Avenue Eask Kalispell Page 1 of 2 Theresa White From: Steve Eckels [eckels@guitarmusicman.com] Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 8:07 PM To: Theresa White Subject: Eckels copy of letter to Jane Hi Jane Congratulations on a brand new year. Tomorrow should be an exciting night with the installation of the new mayor. I'm not planning to attend. I have studied the questions that have been compiled from the scoping meeting and have added some important questions to the list. There is only one question that I would have you answer ASAP and that is the first one. As you recall from the first scoping meeting, the city airport advocates would like to silence this question. How many legal Kalispell residents (voting residents) keep planes at city airport? If you could find this information for me I would appreciate it. Sincerely, Steve Here are the rest of the questions: Should non residents have an equal voice in city airport policy? The Montana Constitution begins, " We the people of Montana grateful to God for the quiet beauty of our state...". Can we really "give thanks to God for the quiet beauty of our state" and at the same time make public policy that creates more noise? Who wrote the Airport Manager's job description and how can it be improved? How can we best use the skills of Colonel Leistiko? What are the advantages of the city becoming the FBO (running the airport), verses having Red Eagle and Associates running it? Would people be apt to move away from the historic district if there is more noise on the south side? What are the gross receipts for sales of gasoline for a year? What is the profit from gasoline to the FBO for a year? How many years will it take to acquire the necessary land at the current site for an expansion? (considering court battles etc.) If the airport flunks the EA (which I believe it will), will the city be interested in building a new airport in cooperation with the county somewhere away from town, or is it better to move the activity to GPI? What is the cost of moving the current tenants to GPI (I understand the city is responsible for this.... but I could be wrong) Did you know that Glacier International Airport is completely safe and convenient for general aviation and aviation training? (there are only 9.5 commercial flights per day average.) Who is spreading rumors that GPI is unsafe and inconvenient, and could they produce a written document to support these claims? What are the odds of "passing" an EA considering the development that has taken place around the airport? 1/20/2010 rage L oz L Are a "historic district" and airport affected zone compatible? 1/20/2010 Airport- to grow or not to grow... Theresa White rage i or i From: Wayne McMichael [wmcmichael@semitool.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 11:36 AM To: news@flatheadbeacon.com; Jane Howington; Theresa White; Michelle Anderson; edit@dailyinterlake.com Subject: Airport- to grow or not to grow... Having watched this valley grow for 50 years, I can honestly say that the growth here will not end. Kalispell, Whitefish, Columbia Falls, Lakeside, Bigfork, Somers will all come together someday. Inevitably the airport will need to grow with the valley. I do not see the airport being able to expand to the level it will need to at it's present location. It should proceed with relocation, then expansion as needed to fit the needs of the Citizenry of the Flathead Valley. No matter where it ends up there will be businesses around it like hotels, restaurants. This valley is of a size that a 20 minute drive can take you just about anywhere here. This is still better than some locations I have been to. I can remember this being a 3 stop light town and LaSalle was gravel. Look at the valley now. Prudent foresight is required here. Think on a larger scale than "Kalispell city airport but rather Flathead Valley airport. The "City's" airport business could be better served thinking on a larger scale to accommodate the valley. With this in mind then I would look at the lands currently available and at least see if they may be a better proposal than just shrugging it off as not doable.... Growing pains are to be expected but can be worked through. Moving it to a county location may change the "restrictions" . They could probably be grandfathered to prevent this scenario from happening in the future when the valley envelopes the airport in it's new location. If we lay out the ground rules now instead of waiting 15 years .... we will all be further ahead. I spent many an afternoon watching the parachutes over the city airport. The soar planes fill me with awe as they quietly sail overhead. I am neither for or against the airport expansion just voicing that we need to think larger and further... Wayne McMichael Flathead Valley Citizen This email and any attachments are Semitool Inc. proprietary and confidential information. Unless you are the intended addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. Intended addressees should abide by all appropriate restrictions regarding the dissemination of proprietary and confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @semitool.com, and delete the message. 1/20/2010 4q* Men N 12/21�/09 — -r Eckels Council Input mown Fact check - FAA Enforcement It was stated at last week's city council work session that the FAA enforces regulations nationwide. The FAA would like you to think they enforce regulations - but they do not have equipment, or personnel to do so. City Airport is classified as an uncontrolled airportHaving an uncontrolled airport in the middle of a crowded city is "unwise" at best and "troublesome." Citizen's Task Force The city manager mentioned the idea of a citizens' task force to help regulate flight activities. To brainstorm on this idea we would need the following: 1. A city staffperson should be located at the airport during operating hours. 2. A telephone. The city staff person would answer phone calls from citizens regarding flight noise and altitude. 3. A training box. Training flights and touch and go practice would be limited to a "training box" as suggested by Cindy Martin, general manager of GPI. When John Doe flies outside of the training box at 3:05 PM, the concerned citizen picks up the phone, calls the airport, and reports to the staff person. The staff member immediately talks with the pilot educating them on city procedures or issuing a fine for repeated infractions. 4. Responsibility - I strongly believe it the city wants an airport they must staff it. Currently, it is being "managed" by the FBO otherwise known as Red Eagle. (See the answer book address and phone number) -)Meanwhile our manager's energies and talents are focused on "development" (which is not in the job description). Regarding the Environmental Assessment <In the EA document there will be thousands of words on paper — the text will be mostly boilerplate with a few facts plugged in here and there The most telling and important facts are the addresses of our local aviation officials What is the unspoken message of these residences? ---The airport manager, Fred Leistiko north Kalispell 61 &%e� tie ---The airport board chairman, Scott Richardson - north Kalispell G�,t -The owner of the FBO/flight school, Jim Pierce - Big Fork 4 Actions speak louder than words. D pite all the data that will be provided to the council, I feel that the addresses or these aviation officials provide the following message. "LIVING IN THE AIRPORT AFFECTED ZONE IS OK FOR OTHER PEOPLE, BUT THE QUALITY OF LIFE THERE IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR US." All of these airport advocates go through the trouble to commute to work near the airport and commute away from the airport to live. Actions speak louder than words. Put first things first How can we move forward when we do not have the land needed for the project? It appears the land may be impossible to acquire without condemning peoples property. I believe Kalispell residents would not tolerate such action. ---Appraise the property. The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number Aviators want the council to think that their rights are being infringed upon because of developing neighborhoods around the airport. Unfortunately, they think they own the airport (see the Interlake Answer Book). Remember the "pig farm" analogy. The airport is not owned by a poor pig -farmer who is being forced to quit farming because of developmen These 77 acres worth, let's estimate 30,000,000 million dollars are owned by 22,000 residents and 11,000 voters. Therefore, community decisions must be made based on the greatest good for the greatest number. Each and everyone listening to this broadcast has a share of approximately .n the 77 acres at 1880 Highway 93 South. Barb Eckels: Shouldn't we wait until after the answers from the scoping session are provided to the public before moving forward with an EA? Date Contractor/Owner Street Address Type 61dg Trans Permit Impact - No."- . Fee 19 B May Lister Construction 160 Herrita e Way CAA 060 2,654.82 26- B09- $ May Lan (as Associates 535 W. Idaho St. CAA 064 2,051.10 15- ;::. $ Jun NW Construction M mt 117 C clone Or SFR 352.00 17- $ Jun Bighorn Development 515 Triple Creek SFR 352.00 24- B09-. $ `>Jun Ron Ter Construction, 2131 Mer anser Dr SFR 080 ' '` 352.00 24- ,; $ Jun Ron Ter Construction ' 35 Carnegie SFR c 352.00 24-.. $ Jun Ron Terry Construction 2110 Merganser SFR 352.00 24- $ Jun Ron Terry Construction ` 2119 Eider SFR 352.00 1-Jul Habitat for Humanity 125 Looking Glass TH 215.00 $ 1-Jul Habitat for Humanity 123 Looking Glass TH 215.00 809- $ 8-Jul Bighorn Development 445 Triple Creek Dr. SFR 086-).` 352.00 8-Jul I BID Inc. 215 Jackson Peak Dr. SFR 088 352.00 13- $ Jul BID Inc. 111 Looking Glass SFR 352.00 16- $ Jul Jeff bay Construction 112`Sandhill Ct. SFR 352.00 20- B09- $ Jul Ron Terry Construction 194 Jackson Peak TH '094 215.00 20- 809-1, $ Jul Ron Terry Construction 192 Jackson Peak TH 093 215.00 20- B09- $ Jul Ron 'Terry Construction 196 Jackson Peak TH 095' 215.00 20- 609- $ Jul Ron Terry Construction 198 Jackson Peak TH 096) 215.00 23- 135 Hutton Ranch Rd. Suite 809- , $ Jul Meredith Construction 101 CAA 099 2,315.76 27- $ Jul Bob Ta for Construction 131 Looking Glass TH 215.00 27- $ Jul Bob Taylor Construction 133 Looking Glass TH 215.00 7. 609= " $ Au Kinnibur h Construction 24010th St. W. SFR 105 352.00 11- 809-", $ AugB.I.D. Inc. 448 Mountain Vista Way SFR 109 352.00 2- 809;- $ Sep I Grace Contracting Inc. 160 Lupine Dr. SFR 121 " 215.00 2- B09-: $ Sep Grace Contracting Inc. 162 Lu ine Dr. SFR 122 215.00 11- $09-< $ Sep Matt Regier 108 Jackson Peak Dr. TH 127 •' 215.00 11- 609-" $ Sep Matt Regier 110 Jackson Peak Dr. TH 128 215.00 11- 809-,:, $ Sep J & F Construction 11 Wheat Grass Lane SFR 129 " '' 352.00 15- 809- $ Oct NW MT Human Res " 375 Battle Ride Dr. SFR 157 352.00 15- B09- $ Oct NW MT Human Res 355 Battle Ride Dr. SFR 058 352.00 15- 809- $ Oct NW MT Human Res 305 Battle Ridge Dr. SFR 159 352.00 15- 809- '. $ Oct NW MT Human Res 365 Battle Ridge Dr. SFR 160 352.00 15- 809- .. $ Oct NW MT Human Res 315 Battle Ridge Dr. SFR 161 352.00 15- $ Oct NW MT Human Res 275 Battle Ridge Dr. 5FR 162 352.00 15- 609- $ Oct NW MT Human Res 381 Battle Ridge Dr. SFR 163 352.00 15- 809-- $ Oct NW MT Human Res 325 Battle Ridge Dr. SFR 164"" 352.00 21- 609-, $ Oct DEV Properties 525 8th St. E. CAA 169 "1 2,366.00 22- 809-'", $ Oct J & F Construction 197 Ali Loop SFR 170 ' ' 352.00 22- 809- $ Oct Eric LeGassey 390 Church Rd. Storage Bldg CAA . 172 340.70 22- 809- $ Oct Kramer Enterprises 165 School House Loop CAA 173 13,815.10 4- 809- $ Nov Snyder Construction 2001 Airport Rd. CAA 177 588.00 10- Silverbrook Investmentws, 809- $ Nov LLC 119 Owl Creek Trail SFR 188 352.00 10- Silverbrook Investmentws, 809- $ Nov LLC 123 Owl Creek Trail SFR 187 352.00 10- Silverbrook Investmentws, 115 Owl Creek Trail SFR 809- $ Nov LLC , : ` ``,.. �� 186 . °�' 352.00 10- Nov Silverbrook Investmentws, LLC 118 Owl Creek Trail SFR 809-, 185 ` $ 352.00 10- Nov Silverbrook Investmentws, LLC 114 Owl Creek Trail SFR 809- 184 $ 352.00 10- Nov Silverbrook Investmentws, LLC 110 Owl Creek Trail SFR 809- 179 $ 352.00 10- Nov Silverbrook Investmentws, LLC 198 Lazy Creek Way SFR 809- " 183 $ 352.00 10- Nov Silverbrook Investmentws, LLC 194 Lazy Creek Way SFR 809- 1 182 $ 352.00 10- Nov Silverbrook Investmentws, LLC 190 La Creek WaySFR 809- 181` $ 352.00 10- Nov Silverbrooklnvestmentws, LLC 202 Lazy Creek Way SFR 809- 180 $ 352.00 12- Nov Ron Terry Construction 2115 Eider Dr. SFR 809- 189 $ 352.00 17- Nov T do F Construction 1331 Hwy 2 W CAA 809- 191 ' $ 1,925.16 40,252.64 4 TOTAL, PERMITS ' 42 SFR = SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TH = TOWNHOUSE CAA = COMMERCIAL DX = DUPLEX MF = MULTI FAMILY (APARTMENT) rage 1 or L Theresa White From: Steve Eckels [eckels@guitarmusicman.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 7:12 AM To: Jane Howington Cc: Theresa White Subject: Eckels Reflections and Thanks Hi Jane I really liked your comment about the "spirit and intent of the law". I thought I would forward some ordinances that I presented earlier this summer that reflect what you are referring to. Bozeman, Missoula and Dayton have ordinances that are very very simple and address the end goal. (Perhaps there could be a preamble addressing the spirit, goal and intent of the ordinance....) Even the current Kalispell noise law 19.10 is in the ballpark in this regard. I especially like the concept of "any" and "unnecessary noise". This protects construction etc. that is necessary and requires that "unnecessary noise" be removed. That is why training laps fall into this category - they are completely unnecessary - Cindy Martin, general manager at Glacier International Airport may be able to add perspective: 406-257-5994 (press 8). Thanks for all you do! Steve "Spirit of the Law" I like the simplicity of Dayton's code - In fact I would have to say I love it; perhaps we should just use Dayton's!: Sec. 94.04. Unnecessary noise prohibited. No person shall make, continue, or cause to be made or continued any loud, unnecessary or unusual noise or any noise which either annoys, disturbs, injures, or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace, or safety of others, within the limits of the city. (Ord. 16964, passed 8-2-50) Cross references: Penalty, see § 94.99. Or Missoula: It is the public policy of the city that every person is entitled to live in an environment where ambient noise levels are not detrimental of life, health and enjoyment of his property and community. It is declared that the making, creation and maintenance of excessive and unnecessary noises within the city is illegal. Or Bozeman 8.30.010 Purpose The City Commission of the City of Bozeman hereby enacts this ordinance to protect, 1/20/2010 rdgC L, V1 Z. preserve, and promote the health, safety, welfare, peace, and quiet of the citizens of the City of Bozeman through the reduction, control, and prevention of raucous noise, or any noise which unreasonably disturbs, injures, or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace, or safety of reasonable persons of ordinary sensitivity. (Ord. 1539 § 1, 2001) Cindy Martin may be a good resource person for thinking this issue through. Cindy is the general manager of Glacier International Airport. Her phone number is 406-257-5994 (press 8). ---She took issue with, and was dismayed by the claim made by some pilots that training at Glacier Airport was "inconvenient". She made it unequivocally clear that the Glacier has more than enough capacity for training exercises. Further, she disputed the argument that Glacier was inconvenient in any of the other ways we have heard from aviators at recent meetings. She says GPI would not enter our city discussion uninvited, but that if we approached her, she would be happy to answer questions and share ideas. She reminded me that people do not own the air over their houses - so that control of aviation must be exerted on the ground level. 1/20/2010 r dgu t ul 1 Theresa White From: Jim Pierce Dim@redeagleaviation.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 6:48 AM To: Theresa White Subject: FW: We love Kalispell City Airport Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 8:13 PM To: jim@redeagleaviation.com Subject: Web: We love Kalispell City Airport Email: topgunjpd@comcast.net Name: John Dimtroff Phone: 425-246-8321 I saw a segment about Kalispell Airport under fire from a group called "Quiet Skies" on an AOPA email. I just want to offer some input for your defense of the airport. My wife and I love to fly into Kalispell for a relaxing change of pace from the hustle & bustle of the Seattle rat race. Kalispell provides some of the most beautiful flying this side of the Rockies and we especially love the fact that we can land at the airport, grab our bags, walk over to our motel, pick up the rental car and stay as long as we want (weather permiting.) We patronize the local businesses while we're there and look forward to our trips to that region of the country. Kalispell is also our favored stop over on the way to Cut Bank, MT and Calgary (Springbank, CA.) When we fly into Kalispell, we make our approaches such that we accomodate the noise sensitive issues (we have the same problems here in the Puget Sound area) and do our best to take into consideration the concerns of the local residents. Our old Skyhawk is no Biz Jet, just a 43 year old bird we work to keep airworthy -- a bird from which to see the beauty of the great Northwest. We hope you can keep this wonderful airport alive, and hope to visit this coming Spring/Summer. J Dimtroff 1/20/2010 Steve Eckels, 619 Second Ave W December 14, 2009 Council Input As we think about our noise ordinance, I respectfully suggest we keep some of the following thoughts in mind. ---As a music teacher and musician I think about the relationship between sound and emotion. To the musician, organized sound is a tool used to convey emotion. Some sounds create tranquility, such as the sounds of a gentle breeze and waves lapping at the shore, as exemplified by the artwork on the wall of the council chamber. Other sounds create nervousness and agitation. Sound is a very real phenomenon - picture a fisherman on a tranquil lake. A large motor -boat passes by creating a wake that rocks the fisherman's boat and scares the fish. This is a precise analogy of what happens with sound. Waves from "second hand sound" rock the boats of all those in their path. Please keep this visualization in mind as you consider the importance of this subject. Regarding the future airport regulations, I would like to share some thoughts that were raised by Cindy Martin the general manager of Glacier International Airport when I talked with at length today. As you all know, my main concern with aviation noise has always been the "necessity" of having touch-and-go training flights over the residential areas. You've heard it before, but I will say it again that there are times in the summer when planes will fly over our house every five minutes. We live near St. Matthew's church and are nowhere near the airport. Pilots like to ask, why did you move near the airport? We are nowhere near the airport but Jim Pierce of Red Eagle Aviation told us we are right on the path for approaches. While Red Eagle has since made some improvements during a couple of weeks last summer, without proper regulations there is nothing to stop them from circling every five minutes next summer. l . Cindy Martin may be a good resource person for thinking this issue through. Cindy is the general manager of Glacier International Airport. Her phone number is 406-257-5994 (press 8). ---She took issue with, and was dismayed by the claim made by some pilots that training at Glacier Airport was "inconvenient". She made it unequivocally clear that the Glacier has more than enough capacity for training exercises. Further, she disputed the argument that Glacier was inconvenient in any of the other ways we have heard from aviators at recent meetings. She says GPI would not enter our city discussion uninvited, but that if we approached her, she would be happy to answer questions and share ideas. She reminded me that people do not own the air over their houses - so that control of aviation must be exerted on the ground level. 2. Keep in mind that many aviators compare themselves to pig -farmers who are being surrounded by development. The thinking is that it is unfair for those who move in around a farm to complain about noise and smell. There are two important differences between the "pig farm" analogy and the City Airport. First - in the case of the city airport the "so called pig farmer" is proposing an expansion and change of use. And secondly, and more important, whereas the pig farmer is a private entity, the city airport is a public entity - a public infrastructure like a road or building. As such, the "so called pig farm/airport is owned by 22,000 citizens and 11,000 voters. Please avoid any appearance of the "wag the dog" syndrome in any new noise regulations. In other words the 22,000 owners of the airport need to be making decisions - not simply the well -organized aviation association. 3. Finally, there is a lot of talk about the economic contribution of city airport. I will not dispute this. I do wonder about economic value of the citizens on the ground. Please consider the economic value of those on the ground. rage 1 or Z Theresa White From: Jane Howington Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 8:12 AM To: Theresa White Subject: FW: kalispell airport FYi. From: Nancy Kimball [mailto:nkimball@dailyinterlake.com] Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 2:41 PM To: Jane Howington Subject: Fwd: kalispell airport Hi Jane -- Here's another email regarding the airport, again just in case it has any bearing on your process. Being from a bush pilot in Africa who was trained at Strand Aviation, this one brings an interesting twist. Thanks, Nancy Begin forwarded message: From: "rijks.agrometeo" <rijks.agrometeo@wanadoo.fr> Date: December 5, 2009 4:17:00 AM MST To: <nkimball@dailyinterlake.com> Cc: <aopahg@aopa.org> Subject: kalispell airport Bonjour, Just want to say how far the benefits of Kalispell City airport have reached. I followed my pilot's training at Kalispell in 1981 with instructor Ken Byers of Strand Aviation, I have flown since then many many hours, mostly in the Sahel, first for the development of the Senegal River Basin and later for the strengthening of the meteorological and hydrological networks, and the training of techniciens and engineers to do meteorological data analysis for application for better food production in these semi -arid areas. At the moment I work the major part of my time as a volunteer on the Sudan-Tchad border to teach refugee women how to use solar cookers in the desert area where there is no wood to cook the food brought in by the World Food Programme of FAO/UN. If refugee women did not have this solar cooking technique, they would have to go out for many miles every day to search, often in vain, for just a little bit of wood and run a 50% risk of being beaten or raped or killed by errant scoundrels. Just to say how much I am grateful to the City of Kalispell and Ken Byers to have given me a chance to become a long-term bush pilot. I do hope that you will decide to continue to give such chances to many, even if they come from Europe and go to work in the worst security regions of Africa. To me this is part of America's technical and human heritage shared with the whole world. And you just need a well functioning airport to continue to play that role. Best regards, Derk Rijks Agrometeorological Applications Associates B.P. 102 F-01213 Ferney-Voltaire Cedex France Tel +33 450 40 88 41 Fax +33 450 40 88 42 Mobil +33 6 85 70 6188 Email: rijks.agrometeo@wanadoo.fr Nancy Kimball 1/20/2010 rage z of L Kalispell City Reporter Daily Inter Lake 727 East Idaho P.O. Box 7610 Kalispell, MT 59904 Phone: 406.758.4483 Fax: 406.758.4481 1/20/2010 rage 1 01 1 Theresa White From: Danlynne [hisway@montanasky.us] Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 11:58 AM To: Theresa White Subject: airport comments Attachments: City airport.doc Dear City Council, I have been unable to attend the meetings because of working evenings, but do appreciate the website information available about the proposed expansion. As part owner of Hammitt Corp. property, please allow me to comment on the proposed expansion with the above attachment. Thank you, Danlynne K. Smith 1/20/2010 Hammitt Corporation 1125 First Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 December 3, 2009 City Council C/O Theresa White 201 First Avenue East Kalispell, Montana 59901 Dear Council Members: Hammitt Corporation owns the property that Scarff Auto recently has occupied. We understand that property is being considered in the expansion proposal of the city airport. Please consider the following items: • The airport is very useful to the business and private sector of our community. • Until recent years, the airport was on the outskirts of town, and posed no problem to the majority of the city, only advantages. • Commercial properties along highway 93 have excellent access to the community and to those who buy in the community, our residents and tourists. • Our particular holdings at 1212 S. Main and 1300 Airport Road with access to 1" Ave. W. are excellent commercial properties, in a central business location, with high traffic visibility. These lands need to remain active commercial properties in the near and distant future. It is not wise to put land of this type, already in use, under any possible restriction from that use in the future. • The proposed airport expansion is moving north toward the heart of the city. • The city has developed mostly north with commercial and residential, but is now due to go south. • Our valley commerce involves much tourism. Tourists would enjoy an airport on the outskirts of the city, not in the city where they would expect to see the city's historic buildings, good shopping, and entertainment. In the best concern of all involved, we would like to offer two ideas: Or 1. Expand the airport south 2. Sell the airport property and buy open land at the edge of the city limits, building the new facilities to meet future demand. The airport is necessary for business concerns, but should not be expanded in a way that will hurt the businesses that already exist. Nor should the airport expansion plans limit what other businesses plan for their future development. If the airport is a thriving and necessary entity of our city, then it should be able to carry the weight of building a new facility, but one that will not take away from already established business. Thank you for your work and consideration. Sincerely, Danlynne K. Smith Co -Director and stockholder of Hammitt Corporation rage i or .5 Theresa White From: Steve Eckels [eckels@guitarmusicman.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 3:57 PM To: Theresa White Subject: Eckels reflections on the Scoping Meeting Airport Information Meeting Reflections By Steve Eckels 619 Second Ave. W. Kalispell, MT I would like to compliment Mayor Pam Kennedy and City Manager Jane Howington for hosting an information -gathering meeting regarding the Kalispell City Airport. There was one oddity. During the afternoon preceding the event, I talked with the facilitator about my concern that speakers provide their residential addresses. My concern was based on the fact that many aviators at council meetings give their business address and we don't really know if they live in Kalispell or not. He assured me directly that it was "proper" City Council procedure to present your residential address when speaking. In fact, he gave me a case history of another city issue in which those speaking were required to do so. I was unpleasantly surprised then at the beginning of the meeting when he stated that the rules were changed and people would not be required to give their addresses. When I asked him what had changed since our conversation he said, and I quote, "someone in power told me that this is the way it would be done." To make the story even more interesting he said he was not permitted to tell me who. Frankly, I felt as though I were taking part in a John Grisham novel. The truth can be stranger than fiction. Folks, this is an example though of how those in power lose the trust of the citizens. In one breath, the facilitator announced that they wanted as transparent process as possible and in the next breath, he stated that speakers did not have to reveal their town of residence, and there was a mysterious invisible power that controlled his actions. Wow. You may have noticed in the Daily Interlake report there were no addresses. The concern of course is that out of town folks are having an inappropriate influence on a local matter. The public might like to know that pilots are worried that the airport might "go away". I am not sure why they fear this. They probably know more than I do about various pressures the airport faces. There was also lots of concern about the facts and information that is available to folks to help them make a decision. To help our city government make an informed decision I have drafted a survey and have asked for answers. I feel that our local citizens might like to know this information too before spending millions of dollars of government money. I hope these questions are relevant and useful to our community. I depend on aviation and admire pilots, so please do not take this editorial as a complaint. It is based on 1/20/2010 rdge G Ul J my concerns' that things are done carefully, responsibly, and with the best interest of the greatest number of people in mind. At the end of this editorial is a copy of the six citizen assurances that we have presented the city and federal government. As I told the assembly at the meeting, I personally am all for airport expansion if they can meet and guarantee these assurance in writing and with factual documentation. You should know that the federal government has rejected these assurances. According to our city attorney, the city is not able or willing to sign the assurances at this time. First, I will present the user survey and then the "public assurances." First the survey: 1. Number of year-round Kalispell residents who use the city airport: A. Business Names; Addresses B. Other Names; Addresses 2. Number of year-round city airport users who are not Kalispell residents: A. Business Names; Addresses B. Other Names; Addresses 3. Residential address of owner of our flight training school/fixed based operation FBO: 4. Estimated revenue that could be generated by charging reasonable take -off and landing fees to non-residents, tourists, etc.: 1/20/2010 rage s or .s 5. Names of year round pilots who live in the "airport affected zone". Proposed Council Resolution: Public Assurances This document is a draft Government Resolution that states the city, county and federal officials are willing to assure the following citizen protections. The assurances must be supported with factual written evidence. The assurances will be signed by the appropriate government officials. Failure to sign the document means that the city, county and federal governments are not able to assure these protections. The City, County and Federal Aviation Administration assures the public: 1. Less noise: The expansion of the airport will result in noise that is equal to or less than the current amount of noise. The city will re -draft the "airport affected zone" to reflect the anticipated noise reduction, before any further steps are taken towards expansion/realignment. 2. Greater Safety: The expansion of the airport will result in greater safety to people on the ground. 3. Will not have a negative affect property values: The expansion of the airport will not have a negative affect on Kalispell's "charm factor" or property values. 4. Humanitarian Fund for Accidents: In the event of a crash, the city and federal government will reimburse people on the ground for damage or injury. The city will maintain a humanitarian emergency fund for this purpose. (Since aviation is so safe, why should the city worry about signing this one? Why should people on the ground be responsible for accidents caused by the select few that use the airport?) 5. Maintain airport with staff and office, and charge landing and take off fees to non-residents: The city will generate money from the airport in the form of reasonable take off and landing fees. The money will be reinvested in the airport -affected zone to upgrade neighborhoods and to help flight schools adjust to training operations a Glacier international or elsewhere. (There is a fee to use the Buffalo Hill Golf Course. Why should we not charge a fee for the specialized users of the airport?) There would be a city office and staff person at the airport to collect fees and answer telephone complaints. The airport office will be staffed by a city official during airport operations. 6. Restrict or eliminate training flights over city limits: The city will restrict or eliminate flight training over the city limits, including helicopters and any touch-and-go flights. Snowmobiles and cigarette smoking are illegal in public spaces for a reason — the airspace belongs to the federal government (public). The flight school may be reimbursed for the inconvenience with revenues generated through take off and landing fees. Signatures: Date: 1/20/2010