Loading...
02/21/97 Gabbert/FAA Financial SupportN U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration February 21, 1997 Mr. Clarence W. Krepps City Manager, City of Kalispell P. O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903-1997 Dear Mr. Krepps: AIRPORTS DISTRICT OFFICE 2725 Skyway Drive, Suite 2 Helena, MT 59601 This is in response to your February 4 letter regarding the process of obtaining our financial support for airport development at Kalispell City Airport. You bring up several questions and make some observations regarding items related to the December 1996 meeting and my January 7 letter: The City of Kalispell has established a point of contact (you), has resolved the sponsorship issue, has stated a position regarding the private accesses to the airport, and is creating an airport manager's position. These are all very positive steps and show the City's commitment to the airport. It was not my intent that the concept of an airport Master Plan be a "major surprise". It was not discussed at the December meeting but much regarding our process was not discussed in that meeting. A Master Plan is the typical process for a new airport or first time FAA involvement in an airport and we strongly recommend it be the process used as much needs to be accomplished. Much work has been done and is contained in various documents but this information needs to be in one document. Your comment that you want us to "...review all of the current plans and documents..." is an example. We have reviewed some of what has been submitted but it is difficult as airport information is intermingled with other information and is contained in various documents. We did discuss a window of opportunity but that was predicated on much happening before we would be in a position to fund anything other than a Master Plan. Many things need to be accomplished by you and the most efficient way to accomplish this is with a Master Plan. It allows our funding program to fund these items as they are being accomplished. It allows for an orderly process which clearly defines the work scope and allows for all items to be addressed and resolved so that everyone will know what needs to be done by who, when and at what cost. A grant could be issued for such a study in a few months depending on timeliness of consultant selection and various reviews (and subject to the national trust fund issue being resolved). This Master Plan, which must be accomplished by a qualified aviation party (consultant, etc.), becomes the basic document that brings everything together and shows the future of the airport. Without doing this Master Plan you will need to fund these items without our participation. If we issue a grant in the future some items would be eligible for our participation. Any costs we may participate in would require review for reasonableness and allowability and we would need to review the qualifications of those that perform those efforts. More specifics on this can be better defined if we get further into that process. Items required to be accomplished by you with or without a FAA funded Master Plan include: early resolution of the towers issue, information regarding the future activity and role of the airport, an environmental assessment (EA), land use and controls around the airport, completion of the Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the development of the property map and a financial plan. Other items such as a plan for the acquisition of the many properties that need to be acquired could be included but would not necessarily be required. The most important item that needs to be accomplished early is the environmental processing (EA). The EA will contain much detail such as an alternatives analysis to the proposed improvements which would include a do nothing alternative, new and existing site alternatives and an alternative of the availability of Glacier Park Int'1. Airport, future activity and role of the airport, community support, noise impacts, safety impacts, an opportunity for a public hearing, etc. The EA needs to be finished prior to taking any action (such as land acquisition) that indicates decisions have already been made. In theory the environmental process is unbiased and supports decisions for airport improvements. If decisions are made that are counter to the EA conclusions they must be strongly supported and rationale presented as to why they are the best decisions. Much detail is needed for the other various items listed such as land use and control documentation as to what exists and what is needed in the future, accurate cost estimates for the total airport project, who would be expected to pay for what and when, future revenue generation and costs of operation and maintenance, etc. I have not listed all of the detail items but you can see there is a lot of detail to be accomplished by qualified parties. Thank you for the copies of the preliminary ALP. I was considering initiating an airspace evaluation of the tower located further away from the airport to determine what impacts it would have such as future instrument minimums, etc., in the event it was not moved. This is premature because of both towers needing to work together. Before an airspace analysis is initiated we need to know where the two towers would be after any modifications or moving of one or both. We don't have enough information to proceed. You discuss community support and the many meetings that have been held and that there has been no opposition. This is very positive. However, during these various effort was the future role of the airport and the potential for increased activity including executive jet traffic and possible increased noise impacts discussed? What are the impacts if the runway is moved to the south and lengthened to 4,700 ft.? As you can see these type of questions will need to be addressed and this is done in the EA. You comment that we appear to be overly sensitive about a small amount of opposition. Over the years we have observed that small amounts of opposition can grow (or be very onerous if small) when more information about the airport improvements becomes known and the public becomes better educated about those improvements. The environmental process of numerous airport improvements around the country have been challenged.by "small amounts" of opposition. Our position is that community support relating to the future role and improvements of the airport must be addressed. This is necessary due to the location of the airport in relation to residences, schools, businesses, etc. Incidentally, we received a letter from another concerned citizen regarding the airport improvements which you should have also received as you were copied on the letter. The land acquisition by the city is a necessary item to be accomplished without our participation and will require following Uniform Act provisions. Our offer of support was based on the City acquiring the land and resolving the towers issue and using our program to fund (at 90%) the on airport improvements. This would be the case regardless of uniform act requirements, although we needed to verify that the uniform act needed to be met. We do not intend on funding the land under our program. In the past we were not supporting any FAA financial aid for the airport so the expenditure of City funds for the tower and land issues along with accomplishing the various items previously stated is a condition of our financial support for the on airport improvements. This is all predicated on the EA processing and as previously stated we need to be cautious about predetermining the decisions without environmental analysis. No action has yet been taken on NPIAS inclusion and this will be done when it is appropriate. Prior to conducting the Master Plan we will place the airport in the NPIAS temporarily until it is completed and leave it in if we continue to support the airport. If the Master Plan is not undertaken we will wait until we are closer to a grant after or near completion of the many items that need to be accomplished. The NPIAS inclusion is not necessary from our view until we get closer to some sort of funding. You make a comment regarding ...frustration over the "moving targets" our agency has historically presented.... Our position until the State Aviation conference last year in Helena was that we were not going to support this airport. At that conference we agreed to reconsider that position and effort was expended by you to do some preliminary ALP work and to get more information. During the December 1996 meeting you agreed that certain standards would be met and we stated consideration for support if the city was willing work the tower issue and purchase land. My January 7 letter then outlined the process and many details that need to be accomplished. Our intention is to move forward cautiously and have answers to the many items that have to be address. The Master Plan will accomplish this with minimal risk to either party. Following are answers or comments to your 5 questions in your February 4 letter: 1. This letter along with the material being sent to you should answer this. If it remains unclear please let me know. 2. No, the City will not be re aired to complete a Master Plan prior to any FAA funding considerations. However, the City will have to accomplish the various items I have enumerated in this letter prior to any FAA funding considerations (except for funding of a Master Plan). 3. Yes, as relates to the closest tower. We plan to initiate an airspace analysis of the, other tower, if it remains, when it is known what happens to the closest tower. 4. Yes as relates to land needed for minimum airport standards items which includes lateral dimensional standards. 5. I presumed the "ball" was rolling since our December 1996 meeting and nothing was needed to get it rolling again. My January 7 letter was to inform you of the process needed and this letter will add to and clarify that letter. Again, there is much that has to be accomplished and we believe a Master Plan 90% funded through our program is the process to accomplish this effort. This and the many handouts and advisory circulars I'm sending you separately should provide enough information for some specifics to assist you. We encourage you to get on the Advisory Circular Mailing list so you can get more of our publications that will be needed down the road. This letter contains much information regarding our process and we recognize that it is not complete as the process is complex. As with these type of projects (first time airport sponsor and FAA participation) there is much to be done in detail to satisfy our process. As you can see the assistance of someone qualified and knowledgeable about airports and our program would be very beneficial to you. Please call me at 449-5271 after you reviewed this letter and information and we can discuss this further. Sincerely, X G% / A � 40e David P. Gabberf Manager cc: MT State Aeronautics Gilbert Bissell