12-13-00 Airport Minutes•
City of Kalispell
Minutes from December 13, 2000 Meeting
The meeting began at 4 :00 p.m. Present were: Chris Kukulski, Alike Baker, Craig Kerzman, P. J.
Sorenson, and Kathy Kuhlin (staff), Gib Bissell, Mike Manion, Keith Robinson, Jim Robischon, and
Art Thompson. Phil Porrini from Peccia and Associates was also present.
Gib discussed the Montana Aviation Conference being held March 1-3, 2001 at the outlaw Inn, with
some activities at Cavanaugh's and Scotty's. Currently they are trying to get some astronauts to
come and speak. Tickets can be obtained for specific speaker events or for the full three days.
Phil Porrini distributed three tables that showed the Site Evaluation Criteria Average of Relative
Importance according to our board and City staff (Table 1)7 according to Robert Peccia and
Associates (Table 2), and according to the Owner/Engineer (Table 3). Phil noted the high and low
numbers on each table.
In discussing the Kadrmas, Lee, and Jackson bill, the Peccia estimate has been adjusted after
discussions with them (the Peccia estimate was considerably lower than theirs). Peccia needed more
responses on Environmental Assessment alternatives and to include more public meetings. once the
contract has been signed, Peccia will write the application to the FAA for the 90% grant money.
Peccia will have a transcript made of one of the Public Hearings with the comments and questions
recorded along with responses to them within a certain time period.
Since Kadrmas has completed their part, Chris will go ahead with the payment of their bill.
Art Thompson explained that Michael Jackola was recommended and appointed to the AOPA to be
their representative in the Airport Support Network (ASN). He will attend meetings and then report
back to the AOPA through their regional representative in the northwest or directly report. The
AOPA has helpful knowledge and support in dealing with airport closures and has lobbied in
Washington D.C. Mike Jackola will need to meet with Mike Baker and Chris Kukuski at some point,
along with this board. This will give us congressional support. The AOPA has a website on the
Internet if anyone is interested. Mike Jackola has a copy of the AOPA Handbook and a copy of our
Airport Layout Plan.
Regarding the west end of the airport, more signs have been put up, but no chain link fencing was put
up before the snow fell. Mike Baker said it may still go up before the year ends, but that there is a
significant snow berm in place.
Airport Advisory Beard Meeting
December 13, 2000
Page 2
.Art asked Phil to explain the contract a little bit. Phil explained that they have three task orders. The
first task order is a Site Selection Study; the second task order is for the Environmental Assessment;
and the third task order is for a Land Acquisition Plan which will consider relocation, purchase, and
easements. roger Jacobsen will assess value to those properties. The final tasks should be completed
by June 3 oth of 2001.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
The next regular meeting will be Wednesday, January 10, 2001 at 4:00 p.m.
Kathy Kuhlin
.Recording Secretary
Kalis ell CIty Air ort - Site Selection StUdy
(ranked from high to low) are shown at the bottom of Table 3.
Step 5. By multiplying the individual site evaluation criteria rating, outlined in the previous section
of this chapter, by the respective relative importance value established above, a total site
ranking score results. Under this ranking system, the higher the score, the more favorable the
site. See Table 4 for the results of these computations for each alternative.
The above ranking system is considered to be a thorough, fair, and logical approach to analyzing potential
airport sites. This system is utilized in the following sections of this study to compare potential airport sites
and to identify the preferred site for the Kalispell Airport.
TABLE
KALISPELL CITYAIRPORT BOARD'S RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF
SITE
Site Evaluation Criteria
Relative Importance
Average
Ranking
High
Medium
Low
(5)
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
Airs ace obstructions
5
4
1
0
1
4.09
`
U
Ex andabilit
2
2
5
2
0
3.36
Wind Ali nment
1
6
3
1
0
3.64
0
Airspace Assessment
1.
2
5
1
2
2.91
Instrument Capabilities
.... ....
0
3
5
3
0
3.00
Proximity to other Airports
...... ..
1
0
1
5
4
2.00
Black Mountain Radar Covera e
0
3
1
4
3
2.36
Public Acceptance I S u ort
2
5
4
0
1 0
3.82
Consistency wl Areawide Plan nin
2
2........ ... . .
5
2
0
3.36
U
Com atible Land Use
1
3
3
3
0
3.20
Develo meat 1 Land Costs
2
2
3
2
0
3.44
o
Surface Trans ortation Impacts
4
3
2
1
0
4.00
Proximi to Kalispell
9
0
1
1
0
4.55
Environmental Concerns
2
4
0
4
1
3.18
°
Floodplains 1 wetlands
0
4
1
4
2
2.64
Economic Benefit
6
4
1
0
0
4.45
Available Infrastructure
2
4
4
1
0
....3.64...
W
Kalil ell CIty Air art - Site Se..... .lection Study
TABLE
ROBERT PECCIA AND ASSOCIATES RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF
Site Evaluation Criteria
Relative Importance
Averabe
Rankine,
Hicrh
Medium
Low
(5)
(4)
(3)
(2)
�I
Airspace Obstructions
2
1.
4.67
U
Ex andability
2
1
3.67
Wind Ali nnent
1
2
4.33
o
Airspace Assessment
1
2
4.33
Instrument Ca abilities
1
2
3.33
Proximity to other Ai arts
2
1
2.67
Black Mountain Radar Coveracre
3
3.00
Public Acce Lance l Support
2
1
3.33
Consistent wl Areawide Planning
1
?
3.33
U
Caatible Land Use
m
1
2
4.33
Development 1 Land Costs
I
1
1
3.00
o
Surface Trans ortation Im acts
I
1
1
3.00
Proximity to Ralis ell
I
1
1
3.67
Environmental Concerns
1
2
4.33
°
Flood lains 1 wetlands
I
I
1
4.00
Economic Benefit
I
I
1
3.00
Available Infrastructure
2
1
3.67
1-9
Kalil ell Cl Air ort site selection stud
TABLE
OWNER/ ENGINEER AVERAGE RELATIVE
IMPORTANCE OF SITE EVALUATION
CRITERIA
Site Evaluation Criteria
average Ranking
Airspace Obstructions
4.38 -'
Expandability
3.52
Wind Ali crnment
3.99
Airspace Assessment
3.62
CIO
[
0
Instrument Capabilities
3.17
v
Proximity to other Ai arts
2.34
Black Mountain Radar Coveracre
2.68
Public Acceptance 1 Support
3.58
Consistencv wl Areawide Planning
3.35
U
U
rn Coatible Land Use
3.77
4-1
Develo rnent 1 Land Costs
3.22
o
Surface Transportation Inn acts
3.50
Proxin to Kalispell
4.11
'
Environmental Concerns
3.76
°
Flood lains 1 wetlands
3.32
Economic Benefit
3.73
Available Infrastructure
3.66
These average relative importance factors will be used at the end of this chapter in a matrix to help determine
the most preferred alternative.
The criteria listed above will be evaluated and discussed for each Alternative. A rating value, as described in
Section C of this chapter will be assigned based on the evaluation. The value in combination with the relative
importance factor will be used to find the preferred alternative. Below is the evaluation of the criteria for each
Alternative. The criteria are evaluated in the order of most important to least based on the findings above.
................
1-10