03-31-10 Airport MinutesCITY OF KALISPELL
I.I 1:�z• Yt i s i t •
March 31, 2010
TO: Jane Howington, Kalispell City Manager
Fred Leistiko, Kalispell City Airport Manager
FM: Airport Advisory Council for the Kalispell City Airport
At the March 31, 2010 meeting of the Airport Advisory Council, the city manager presented the
advisory council with three options for the airport as compiled by Stelling Engineers, Inc. After
discussing each option, the board voted unanimously to recommend option 3. Detailed feedback
specific to each option follows and is delineated by a (+) for positive and (-) for negative:
Option 1
• + The airport will gain a runway object free area.
• - The project will not be eligible for FAA funding.
• - The project will not bring the airport into compliance with current FAA safety
standards.
• - The outcome will require City of Kalispell subsidy on an ongoing basis.
• - The project will require land acquisition.
• - The City of Kalispell will need to fund maintenance which has been deferred.
• - The City of Kalispell will not be reimbursed for the 3+ million dollar investment
made to date.
Option 2
• + The airport will gain a runway object free area.
• + The airport will gain a runway protection zone which meets current FAA
standards.
• - The project will not be eligible for FAA funding.
• - The project will not bring the airport into compliance with current FAA safety
standards.
• - The outcome will require City of Kalispell subsidy on an ongoing basis.
• - The project will require land acquisition.
• - The City of Kalispell will need to fund maintenance which has been deferred.
• - The City of Kalispell will not be reimbursed for the 3+ million dollar investment
made to date.
• - The project will require significant business relocation at considerable expense.
• - The project will require a significant investment by the City of Kalispell into
airport infrastructure.
Option 3
• + The airport will meet all current FAA safety and airport standards.
• + The project will be eligible for an FAA grant funding 95% of the undertaking.
• + The airport will be eligible for ongoing maintenance, funded by the FAA, for
$150,000 annually.
• + The airport will not require an ongoing subsidy by the City of Kalispell.
• + A new airport design will provide a large noise buffer as a result of land
acquisition.
® + The project will provide a large investment into the Kalispell Airport Tax
Increment District.
® + The project will allow for an expanded tax base.
• + The City of Kalispell will be reimbursed for 95% of the funds expended for the
project.
• - The project will require land acquisition.
MEMBERS IN AGREEMENT:
� r
K
Scott Richardson, Chairman
Agrement via e-mail, 4/3/2010
Chris Amyes, Member (absent)
Keith Robinson, Member
David J. Woerner, Member
Dan Snyder, Member
may..------�-----7
Terry An erson, Member
Richard Rapacilo, Me ber
1 "66 1 Wl -
Subject: FW: Kalispell City Airport Response
Option 1 - Do clothing: Leave Runway 13-31 in its current location and orientation and perform minimal
upgrades to improve safety at the Airport.
This option would not meet FAA design standards for the projected critical aircraft and would
therefore not be eligible for any Federal funding assistance. Without FAA involvement, there
are essentially no issues with development; the City could pursue what ever improvements they
deem appropriate. Stelling would recommend that the City try to achieve compliance with the
minimum ARC design standards which would be Design Group I (DG-1) — Small Aircraft
Exclusively (SAE). Small aircraft are planes weighing less than 12,500 pounds; Design Group I
aircraft are planes with wingspans less than 49'. The following is a brief summary of the issues
and the feasibility of meeting DG-1 (SAE) standards:
o Runway 13-31 - Existing runway width of 60' meets minimum width for DG-I; the
existing length will accommodate 75% of the GA fleet.
o Runway Object Free Area — A total width of 250' (125' each side of centerline) is
required. Additional land and clearing would be required on both sides at the
south third of runway.
o Runway Protection Zones — This requirement is not directly related to the Design
Group but is a function of the Approach Category (A, B, etc.) and Approach
Visibility Minimums. The minimum requirement for Small Aircraft Exclusively and
visual approaches is a trapezoidal area 250' x 450' x 1,000' beginning 200' from
each runway end. The current location of Runway 13-31 does not place the
RPZ's on airport property as the FAA would require. Since Option 2 directly
addresses a shift to the south and an extension, this option will not comply with
FAA standards for RPZ's.
o Taxiways — The two existing parallel taxiways are too close to Runway 13-31.
DG-1 standards require a minimum separation of 150' between parallel taxiways
and runways. Kalispell City Airport's taxiway separation is 90'. In addition to the
separation, the existing taxiways do not meet the minimum width requirements
for DG-1 standards. The existing taxiways are 20' wide; DG-1 standards require
25' wide taxiways. Different options are possible to construct new parallel
taxiways that meet DG-1 standards. Each option will have different issues
associated with it. For example, if additional land is not acquired on the west
side of the runway and south of the connector taxiway, there will not be sufficient
land to extend the parallel taxiway to Runway 31. To establish the feasibility of
meeting DG-I taxiway standards for all of the options will require further
evaluation.
o Part 77 Airspace — The current ALP does not include information on Part 77
airspace pertaining to the existing runway and is therefore difficult to evaluate
without significant effort. Some basic observations are that the KGEZ radio
towers are penetrations to the Runway 31 approach surface and are considered
by the FAA to be hazardous to air navigation. There also appears to be
transitional surface (7:1) penetrations by the Hilton, Rosauers, and Murdochs.
Option I Summary — Some property acquisition would be required to establish the
Runway OFAI on airport property and total reconstruction of the taxiways will be
necessary to comply with the absolute minimum design standardsestablished
withoutFAA. The west side parallel taxiway could not be extended to the end of Runway 31
additional a .t r acquisition. Finally, option wa is not meet.: FAA's
minimum Rom, requirements. The FAA would notp poOption
it r design stans y RP . qu
file://C:\Documents and Settings\fleistiko\My DocumentslFW Kalispell City Airport I2esp... 3/12/2010
rags /_ ul 'f
Option 2 - Do Nothing: Leave Runway 13-31 in its current location and orientation but shift it to the
south to meet the minimum RPZ requirements for Runway 13 and extend to a length of 4,200'.
This option would not meet FAA design standards for the projected critical aircraft and would
therefore not be eligible for any Federal funding assistance. The FAA has stated that they will
not support development of an ARC B-I facility at the Kalispell City Airport. This option is
intended to meet Design Group I (DG-1) standards and is therefore similar to Option 1. The
southerly shift and extension to 4,200' are the elements that differentiate it from Option 1. There
are two sub -categories of the DG-I group: Small Aircraft Exclusively (SAE) and Not Exclusively
Small Aircraft (MESA). SAE planes are those weighing less than 12,500 pounds while MESA
planes are those weighing more than 12,500; Design Group I aircraft are planes with wingspans
less than 49'. The following is a brief summary of the issues and the feasibility of meeting DG-I
standards with respect to both SAE and MESA standards:
o Runway 13-31 - Existing runway width of 60' meets minimum width for DG-I both
SAE and MESA. Constructing to a length of 4,200' with a southerly shift of 700'
will require the acquisition of several commercial properties fronting US Highway
93 and the removal of several buildings from these properties.
o Runway Object Free Area — A total width of 250' (125' each side of centerline) is
required for SAE; a total width of 400' (200' each side of centerline) is required
for MESA. Additional land and clearing would be required on both sides of the
runway at the south third of runway to comply with SAE and MESA
requirements.
o Runway Protection Zones — This requirement is not directly related to the Design
Group but is a function of the Approach Category (A, B, etc.) and Approach
Visibility Minimums. The minimum requirement for Small Aircraft Exclusively and
visual approaches is a trapezoidal area 250' x 450' x 1,000' beginning 200' from
each runway end. The current location of Runway 13-31 does not place the
RPZs on airport property as the FAA would require. To meet this requirement
would require shifting the runway approximately 700' to the south. Additional
land would be required to the south for a 700' shift and a 600' extension. The
additional land needed would include portions of commercial property abutting
US Highway 93 and a small corner of the property owned by the Wise family.
o Taxiways — The two existing parallel taxiways are too close to Runway 13-31.
SAE standards require a minimum separation of 150' between parallel taxiways
and runways; MESA standards require a minimum of 225' of separation.
Kalispell City Airport's taxiway separation is only 90'. In addition to the
separation, the existing taxiways do not meet the minimum width requirements
for DG-I standards. The existing taxiways are 20' wide; DG-I standards (Both
SAE and MESA) require 25' wide taxiways. It will not be possible to have a
parallel taxiway on the east side of the runway that meets DG-1 MESA
requirements. Rosauers is too close to the existing runway to provide the
separation and object free areas that are required. It would be possible to meet
DG-I SAE standards, however. Different options are possible to construct new
parallel taxiways that meet DG-I SAE standards. Each option will have different
issues associated with it. To establish the feasibility of meeting DG-I SAE
taxiway standards will require further evaluation.
o Part 77 Airspace — The current ALP does not include information on Part 77
airspace pertaining to the existing runway and is therefore difficult to evaluate
without significant effort. Some basic observations are that the KGEZ radio
towers are penetrations to the Runway 31 approach surface and are considered
by the FAA to be hazardous to air navigation. There also appears to be
transitional surface (7:1) penetrations by the Hilton, Rosauers, and Murdochs.
Option 2 Summary — Significant property acquisition would be required to shift and
file://C:\Documents and Settings\fleistikoWy DocumentsTW Kalispell City Airport Resp... 3/12/2010
extend the runway to the south and establish the Runway OFA on airport property.
Several businesses fronting US Highway 93 would need to be relocated to accommodate
the shift and extension. Total reconstruction of the taxiways will be necessary to comply
with the absolute minimum design standards established by the FAA. The west side
parallel taxiway could be extended to the end of Runway 31 with a minor amount of
additional land acquisition. The FAA would not participate in or support Option 2 since it
does not meet B-11 design standards.
Option 3-Reconstruct the runway ƒOB-Ustandards along G14-32orientation toolength Of3.7OO'
The FAA would support the planning and construction of the new runway to DG-11 standards but
would not support 8runway length limited to3'7OO'. The FAA has indicated that they will
support aplanning Oflength Of4'28O'vvhiChwould accommodate 9596Ofthe GAfleet; planning
to the ultimate length for 100% of the GA fleet would not be required for FAA support. Since
minimum runway length of 4,280' would be required for FAA support, the issues pertaining to
this options will be presented in that context. This is- essentially the ODdOO ShOvVO OD the current
ALP but 5OO'ShOrte[ The following iS@brief summary Vfthe issues and the feasibility of
meeting DG-11 standards on a rotated or skewed alignment and a length of 4,280':
o Runway 14-32 - New nuOvv8y is COOStnJCt8d to 8 Vvkjtl Of75' tO meet OG-U
St@Od8PdS. As noted above, the FAA would require planning to 8 length that
accommodates 95%Ofthe GAfleet Or4.28O'. Substantial land acquisition would
berequired for the rotated alignment, southerly shift, and extension t}4'28O'. All
Ofthe new property acquisition shown Onthe current Exhibit AProperty Map
would berequired. However, Cemetery Road would not need 0]b8relocated.
o Runway Object Free Area - A total width of 500' (250' each side of centerline) is
required for D{S-||standards. All Ofthe new property acquisition shown ODthe
current Exhibit AProperty Map would berequired t0protect the []FA.
u RUOvv8y PFOhBCtiOn Zones - This requirement is not directly related to the Design
Group but i38function Ofthe Approach Category k4.B,etC.\and Approach
Visibility Minimums. The requirement for Aircraft Approach Categories Aand B
with ViSUa| approaches (Or NP| not lower than 1 mile) is 8 trapezoidal area 500' X
7UO`x1'O0O'beginning 20O'from each runway end. The proposed location Of
Runway 14'32(as shown oOthe ALP) would place the Runway 14RPZOO
airport property; the Runway 32 RPZ would require land acquisition to comply
with FAA FeqUi[8Dl8OtS.
o Toxivvaya-ThiG option plans for the [8CODStnu[tiOD Ofthe taxiways to DG-1|
SCBOd8rdS. The proposed land acquisition includes the property necessary tO
construct the new taxiways that comply with FAA design standards.
o Part 77 Airspace - This option minimizes obstructions to the Part 77 airspace
created by structures fronting U8 Highway 93. The FAA will still require that the
KGEZradio towers b8removed before they will support improvements 8t
Kalispell City Airport.
Option 3 Summary - This option will only garner FAA support if the planned length of
Runway 14-32 is 4,280' to accommodate 95% of the GA fleet. The City would not
necessarily need to construct to a length of 4,280' but they would need to show the 950
length on the ALP and acquire the land needed to extend to that length. As a result,
significant property acquisition would be required to shift, rotate, and extend the runwa
to the south and establish the Runway OFA and RPZs on airport property. Several
residences, including one or two on the Wise property, would need to be relocated to
accommodate the shift, rotation, and extension. Total reconstruction of the taxiways w
be necessary to accommodate the runway changes and meet design standards
established by the FAA. The FAA would participate in and support Option 3 if it was
and City Airport R*nn.- 3/17/2010
ragu -t ul -t
Fred and I met with Gary Gates at the MAD Conference in Missoula on March 5th to discuss the
Kalispell City Airport. The FAA presented several key development criteria for Kalispell City Airport:
The FAA will not support planning or construction of an ARC B-1 facility at Kalispell City Airport.
The current level of aviation activity and projected forecasts require planning for a B-11 facility for
FAA support.
2. The FAA would support planning for a runway length less than 100% (4,700') but not less than
95% (4,280'). The City would not necessarily need to construct to a 95% length but would need
to show that length on the ALP and acquire the necessary land for a future runway extension.
The FAA prefers to leave the 100% length requirement in the plan for now and allow the EA
process to address length through public comment.
3. The FAA would support additional planning to assess whether there are other suitable runway
orientations (between existing and the proposed 5 degree rotation) that comply with FAA
standards but minimize the amount of land needed from the Wise family.
4. The FAA is not willing to compromise aviation needs in order to fit the existing environment or
conditions at the airport. In other words, the FAA won't support an effort to determine what
airport facilities will work on land the airport currently owns or can easily acquire (ie work around
the Wise property).
In summary, the FAA will only support development at Kalispell City Airport of a facility that
meets B-11 requirements and is planned for a minimum runway length of 4,280 feet. Anything
short of these requirements will not be supported by the FAA. Options I and 2 therefore would
not be eligible for any Federal funding or reimbursement on past investment. Option 3 would be
eligible for Federal funding and reimbursement provided that the runway is planned to a length
of 4,280'. There is also the potential runway rotation less than 5 degrees that would decrease
the amount of land required from the Wise family and still meet FAA design standards. The City
may want to evaluate this option further.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions.
Thanks
Jeff Walla, PE
Stelling Engineers, Inc.
1372 Airport Road
Kalispell, NIT 59901
phone: 406-755-8602
fax: 406-755-8710
email: jwalla@stellinqinc.com
file://C:\Documents and Settings\fleistiko\My Documents\FW Kalispell City Airport Resp... 3/12/2010