Loading...
01/05/93 Williams/Airport Neighborhood PlanDATE: January 5, 1993 TO: Mayor and Council -•Manager Airport- « «. «• futureThe Kalispell City Airport Neighborhood Plan completed February, 1993 was undertaken to provide the City with a useful tool for land use planning for the City airportthe surrounding • ••_ The plan assumes that the airport facility will remain open and therefore focuses much of the analysis on discussion associated with implementing - -•' designed to improve operations and safety conditions at the airport while enhancing opportunities for increased private investment and development in the area. The plan recommends the adoption of six primary goals for the airport and the area of influence. They include: Goal A. "Minimize hazards to navigation": by implementing 10 specific strategies targeted at complying with FAA airport design standards for a B-1 category airport by 2) improve approach conditions to the run way which requires implementing 5 specific strategies 3) regulate uncontrolled access onto the airport taxiway and runway, involving two specific strategies 4) Install a fence around the identified airport perimeter 2 strategies and 5) establish a half time to full time airport manager with two strategies. Goal B. "Develop the airport in accordance to an Airport Layout Plan": by 1) establishing a single designated area for the FBO`s which includes 8 specific strategies 2) establishment of a designated area on City property for airport related leasing opportunities with 3 specific strategies 3) maintaining a defined building restriction line for all structures adjacent to the airport facilities with 3 specific strategies. 0 Goal C. "To increase development opportunities on nearby properties": by 1) identifying City -owned properties in the area of existing airport that are not airport dependent with two specific strategies. Goal D. "To promote compatible land uses in and around the airport": by 1) applying zoning regulations to establish the type, location and size of permitted uses within the airport strategies 2) apply subdivision regulations to all land divisions adjacent to or within the' designated airport boundary - with one specific strategy 3) attempt to apply City review authority to all airport abutting properties when associated land use proposals are airport dependent with one specific strategy. • • establish funding for airportoperations anr airportcapital requirement": by ;"establishing reasonable • fstrategies utilize the'revenue to 4gund cost for routine airport maintenance with three strategies and esignate monies from the sale Zycity properties ��an airport fundwith 1 specific strategy. Goal F. "To establish a priority schedule for plan implementation": by 1) designating short-term capital projects 1-5 years for plan implementation with six specific strategies and 2) designate long-term 5-15 years capital priorities for plan implementation with ♦specific strategies. The report, however fails to provide an evaluation of the fiscal impacts associated with implementing these goals and related strategies. For the purpose of providing this information we focused our attention to Goal F which contains the short and long term capital strategies. requiring investment for plan implementation. Our estimate includes the following: 1. •cost associated with 2. Excavation and pavement for runway extension 92,250 3. Private road closure south ! of runway at 2.50 75,000 4. Extend single taxiway 24,700 9. Increase existing taxiway to 24' 13,215 0 6. Remove all objects in protective zone 5,000 * 7. Strobe light KGEZ radio tower 2,500 S. Build helicopter landing pad 6,130 9. Install PAPI navigation system 15,000 * 1/2 10. New lights and wiring 12.0,000 11. 6' chain link fence 11,350 136,200 lin. ft. 12. Increase bearing load of runway 2" overlay 55,200 1/2 13. Engineering Cost 90,000 * Short term 1-5 years $893r Total cost for improvements identified as strategies by the report is $1,198,195. Of this amount approximately $893,000 is identified as short termimplemented theseHow do we fund improvements? Althou! -,• discusses funding options it does not provide any useful option for funding major capital improvements as discussed above About the only way improvements of this scope can be funded i- through a general obligation bond which requires voter approval Revenue bonds represent the traditional method of fundi improvements for municipal enterprises however the revenu- C - .: • capacityof our airportis extremely limited •:. indicated by pastperformance. • example in Fiscal .. tota revenue generation for the airport was $7,229, not even enou to fully fund the bare boned operating budget of the enterprise_ As mentioned the report discusses options which could impro the annualrevenue to fund operation ofthe airport,• Eli As you know this option is not presently being used for several reasons. 1) Councils philosophy that enterprise activities should pay their own way 2) property tax revenue has been earmarked for general government services 3) Council has the past 3 years reduced our property tax levy by approximately 14 mills. Using a property tax levy to fund the revenue shortfall in the airport fund while an appropriate use of this tax does not appear to be in line with present Council philosophy. Therefore funding for operation, maintenance and capital improvements for the airport remains a major problem now and into the future. Given the concerns associated improvements and operating expenses council might want consider other options for the neighborhood. There appear to three options, a fourth would be do nothing, however we wil focus on three that seem most reasonable with respect to t neighborhood plan. I Option One would be to adopt the neighborhood Airport Plan as presented in the Greer report. This option would provide the followings Benefits of This Option 1. A very busy general aviation airport would remain open in public ownership 2. 3. . 5. undeterminedDirect benefit to approximately 60 local pilots and a number.. out of town pilots. N implementingImproved safety conditions at the airport facility as a result of safety strategies. Possible relocation of sport facilities away from the Undetermined community economic benefit from the continued operation of the airport Creationf. of limited commercial opportunity along Highway 7. Opportunity to promote compatible land uses around the airport. Opportunity8. .authority/orpossibly k, 1. Significant Capital cost associated with airport improvements and recreation facility relocation 2. Liability exposure associated with operating an airport of this type inside the City. 3. Continued revenue short fall for proper maintenance and operation of the airport. 4. Public subsidy required for both operation and capital improvements 5. Airport does not qualify for FAA funding assistance. Option Two would involve privatizing the airport by selling the asset to an individual or group with the condition the airport remain operational: 1. Release City from liability exposure 2. Eliminate public funding requirements for operation and capital expenses 3. Keep airport as general aviation facility . Retain sale proceeds of property for other municipal purposes 5. Relocate ball fields and convert property to Commercial/Industrial Use Costs of This Option 1. FBO°s might suffer some financial loss 2. Property would have to be marketed 3. Cost to relocate ball fields maybe too expensive (estimate 500,000 includes property purchase) . May not be able to find qualified buyers for the airport facility. 5. Airport does not qualify for FAA funding 6. Buyer might require airport be brought to BI standard prior to purchase C The Third Option would be to close the airport and convert all publically owned property to higher and better use. Benefits of This Option 1. Liability exposure goes away 2. Conversion of property to commercial /industrial use would improve property value and increase tax base. 3. No public subsidy for maintenance and operation and capital improvements. Cost Associated Option 2. City would have to buy out lease,hold improvements -cost 1. Elimination of a very busy general aviation airport 3. :•'s might suffer• •loss 4. Possible economic loss to surrounding businesses 5. job loss to those employed by FBO's 6. Negative impact on local pilots and visitors who use the airport As you are aware the Greer Report is recommending Option One. The other two options have been offered in light of the cost and liability associated with the continued operation of the City airport. If you decide that Option One most closely represents your desire then we need to begin developing a realistic plan for both funding the annual operations of the airport and most importantly committing to full funding the capital• • _ _ suggested in the study. If you decide one of the remaining two options is more desirable then we need to begin developing a transition policy either for privatizing or closing the airport and redoing the neighborhood • your choice.