Comments Rec'd After the May 7 PHTheresa White
From: Allen Chrisman [chrisman@bresnan.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 10:06 AM
To: Theresa White
Subject: Final Comments on Airport Plan
Attachments: Kalispell City Airport Comments May 7, 2012.doc
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment last night. Attached are my final written comments regarding the
Kalispell City Airport Master Plan Update.
I urge you to look at the Airport as a long term asset, and make the changes necessary to resolve the current
safety issues as outlined in the Recommended Alternative.
Thank you for your service. Allen Chrisman, 193 Arbour Drive East, Kalispell MT
Allen Chrisman
193 Arbour DR E
Kalispell, MT 59901
May 7, 2012
chrisman@bresnan.net
Mayor Tammi Fisher and Kalispell City Council
c/o Kalispell City Clerk
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
RE: Comments on Kalispell City Airport Plan
Dear Mayor Fisher and City Council:
I am submitting these comments to be considered by the Kalispell City Council in their selection
of a future plan for Kalispell City Airport.
supportOption B as the preferred
Council to adopt that alternative.
I previously submitted comments on the Draft on January 13, 2012. These comments are
similar but revised based on the Final Master Plan Update.
I attended your workshop on April 9. At that workshop I was pleased to note the following:
® The FAA supported Site 1, Option B, the Recommended Alternative as meeting the FAA
aeronautical standards.
® The FAA characterized Kalispell City Airport as one of the busiest General Aviation
Airports in the State of Montana.
® The FAA committed to provide partial reimbursement to the City of Kalispell once all the
agreements are in place for the realignment and expansion under the preferred
alternative.
® The addition of the Heliport on the west side of the relocated runway under the
preferred alternative. I see this as being responsive to concerns from nearby residents
about noise from airport operations.
I commend you and Stelling Engineers on the analysis you have completed and the information
you have provided. I do not reside within the city limits of Kalispell, but since your plan includes
proposals to relocate the airport outside the City to land in the county near my residence in
Country Estates north of West Reserve, I believe I have standing to comment. My comments
relate to the Alternatives as defined in Chapter 6 — "6.9 Development Alternatives" in the Final
Master Plan Update posted on the City website.
Safety:
1. 1 retired from the Forest Service in 2008. Prior to that, I flew as passenger on numerous
fixed wing flights out of Kalispell City Airport. I can tell you from career experience in
small aircraft that I would much prefer to fly in and out of small airports than to mix
with commercial traffic at GPI. In terms of instructors providing introductory flying
lessons, I know that it would be more comfortable and safer at the City Airport
compared to relocating to GPI.
2. The Site 5, Option A proposal to relocate the Airport to land in the County north of West
Reserve and west of Spring Creek Road may resolve some issues, but creates others. My
concern is that the mixture of air traffic on approach to the relocated City airport may
conflict with commercial traffic on final to GPI. That would appear to be potentially
much more hazardous than the current City Airport location south of Kalispell. My
concern is substantiated by your assessment in Chapter 6, page 128 of the Final citing a
greater potential for air traffic conflicts with GPI at Site 5 compared to the current City
Airport location: "The current site is also well situated in the area to service the south
end of Kalispell and northern areas of Flathead Caine. Site 5, Option A relocates the
airport to the northwest end of Kalispell and much closer to GPI. There is a greater
potential at this location for air traffic conflicts and a decrease in capability to expand
the service area of the airport."
Economic Benefit:
1. 1 believe that the current location of Kalispell City Airport is indeed an asset to the City.
It provides economic benefit to not only the adjacent businesses, restaurants and
lodging, but with its proximity to the City has the potential to add substantially to retail
businesses in other locations. Your own assessment estimates the economic benefit to
be $24 million per year (Chapter 6 page 120): "An Economic Impact Study prepared by
Wilbur Smith Associates in 2008 estimated that total economic impact resulting from
the operation of the Kalispell City Airport was $24.2 million in 2008. This estimate
includes economic output of $7.3 million in direct, on -airport activities; $7.5 million in
direct visitor spending; and $9.4 million of indirect, second round spending in the
community." While some of that benefit would be retained if other options were
selected, why would a City desiring economic improvement walk away from this
opportunity?
2. Compared to the other Alternatives, your assessment indicates that Site 1 Option B is
the best in terms of economic benefit (Chapter 6 page 133): "Site 1, Option B has the
greatest potential for economic benefit to the community. The existing site is in a very
favorable location to encourage commerce generated through aviation activity. If the
airport was improved to increase safety and the condition of facilities, the upgrade
would likely attract more local users and itinerant users from other areas."
Financial Cost to the City:
1. Your assessment clearly shows that the most cost-effective alternative for the City
would be Site 1, Option B which improves the current location to the B-2 standards that
would qualify for federal funding. Not only is the initial cost to the City the least of any
of the development alternatives, it makes the City eligible for reimbursement for
previous improvements with federal funds (Chapter 6 page 136): "Site 1, Option B is a
federally funded alternative that would result in a local match (10%) of $2,587,575;
there would be no lease buy-outs; and the City would be eligible to be reimbursed for
prior development and land acquisition (subject to meeting all federal obligations).
Assuming the federal funding program continues at its current level and current
provisions, the City of Kalispell would ultimately be reimbursed for 90 percent of all
eligible development and land acquisition costs incurred in the future and in recent
years. This results in a net reimbursement to the City of $349,704." This protects the
City's investment, improves the airport for safe, continued future use, and meets
federal aviation standards. Site 1, Option B is the only alternative that results in a net
reimbursement to the City beyond the costs of development. The other alternatives,
including the No Action Alternative, result in unreimbursed costs to the city of from $3.7
million to $8.2 million (Table 6-10, page 136). This factor in conjunction with resolving
the aeronautical issues is reason enough for the Council to select Site 1, Option B.
Local Impacts:
1. 1 can empathize with homeowners who are concerned about noise from an expanded
airport in its current location. However they purchased their home with full knowledge
of the proximity to the airport with no guarantees restricting future development of the
airport. All of us in the Flathead know that expanded development is in our future — and
it should be no less obvious to those who chose to purchase close to the City Airport (for
a price that should have reflected that proximity). The City can (and has) addressed the
use and noise creation at the airport and should continue to do so in the future. The
addition of the Heliport should help the noise issue.
2. When we purchased our home in Country Estates in 2004, we knew we were in the
approach lane for GPI, and we understand that air traffic will increase in the future and
accepted that at the time of purchase. While relocating City Airport to the location
north of West Reserve and west of Spring Creek would increase the noise in our
neighborhood, my primary concern is the potential for conflicted airspace on the
approaches to GPI and the relocated City Airport.
3. 1 would also object to Site 5, Option A as it would require taking more agricultural land
out of production for development of the new airport. There is no reason to take more
agricultural land out of production while with minor modifications to the current City
Airport location it can continue to be used safely into the future.
Recommendation:
While your Alternative Evaluation Matrix (Table 6 —11, page 138) is complex, I think it
should help you focus on a simple decision. Site 1, Option B scores the highest and
Immediate Closure is close behind based on the matrix. It comes down to a decision
between improving the City Airport to B-2 standards (Site 1, Option B), or closing and
relocating to GPI (Immediate Closure). It is not surprising that relocating to GPI has a
stronger score in the Aeronautical Category — it should, GPI is a commercial airport. This
is discussed on page 137 regarding ratings in the Aeronautical Category: "The scoring
matrix ranks and scores the Immediate Closure alternative higher than Site 1, Option B
because the facilities at GPI are to higher standards than needed for the fleet mix
operating at Kalispell City Airport. These increased standards do provide a safety
enhancement to the relocated aircraft using GPI but the increased standards are not
necessary and could be considered "overkill". The assumption does not take into
account that some users may relocate to Ferndale or Whitefish which are inferior
facilities and would not score as high as any of the other options in the aeronautical
criteria. After considering these subjective factors, it can be concluded that the scoring
of the immediate closure alternative in the matrix evaluation is erroneously high."
What makes the difference is the stronger score for Site 1, Option B in the non -
aeronautical category, while meeting the federal standards in the aeronautical category,
resulting in the highest score overall. That should make the City's decision much easier
— it is clear that Site 1, Option B meets the City's needs best and upgrading the existing
Airport location to the B-2 standards would serve both the City and the Aviation
Community the best.
"'After careful review of the scoring criteria; other subjective factors; and input from
the FAA, the City of Kalispell, airport users, and the public; Site 1, Option B was
selected as the recommended alternative for the Kalispell City Airport. Although
Immediate Closure scores high in the matrix, there are several inherent problems
resulting from the assumptions made for scoring and evaluation as described above.
It is our opinion that the assumptions made for the Immediate Closure alternative,
although necessaryfor scoring purposes, result in an erroneously high score for this
alternative. Site 1, Option B represents an airport thatfulfills airside safety design
standards, best utilizes existing facilities, and best meets the needs of the current and
planned airport users as well as the City of Kalispell. Selection of this alternative is
consistent with all of the other planning studies completed over the past ten years."'
(Final Master Plan Update page 139)
I encourage you to view the City Airport as an asset and move forward to make the
necessary improvements. Adopting the Recommended Alternative is the most prudent
use of City funds, and is the most appropriate for aviation safety by maintaining the
separation of aircraft approaching both GPI and Kalispell City. It also maintains the
unique advantage Kalispell has in hosting a City Airport that is actually close to the City.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Is/Allen Chrismon
ALLEN B. CHRISMAN
Theresa White
From: Shannon Nalty [shannon@naltyrealestate.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 11:09 AM
To: Robert Hafferman; Charlie Harball; Jeff Zauner; Kari Gabriel; Phil Guiffrida; Tammi Fisher;
Theresa White; Wayne Saverud
Subject: Emailing: Aviation economic benefits soar /Natty
Attachments: "AVG certification"
SHOP CONTACT US SEARCH ARCHIVES MY ACCOUNT
7754.oF Forecast
[ ][Search]
Business MEDIA W e ve got you I
EXAMINER GROUP
BLOG / APRIL 2012 / AVIATION ECONOMIC BENEFITS SOAR
Apr30,201211:05AMDaily Biz Briefs
Aviation economic benefits soar
Apr 30, 2012 - 11:05 AM
Washington's 135 public airports are continuing to help local economies take flight, generating thousands of jobs
and millions of dollars for cities and counties throughout the state. The findings are just a few of the highlights from
the 2012 Aviation Economic Impact Study, which was conducted by the Washington State Department of
Transportation's Aviation Division.
"The study helps us take a much closer, detailed look at our system in terms of its economic benefits and provides
unique insight from the perspective of the airports, the industry and those who use our services," said Tristan Atkins,
WSDOT aviation director. "Ultimately, it's a tool that helps us improve the way we do business."
Highlights of the 2012 study include:
• Statewide commercial and general aviation activity generate about 248,500 jobs, $15.3 billion in wages, and $50.9
billion in economic activity.
• A significant share of aviation system contributions are from the mobility and connectivity of people, goods and
services across all modes of transportation.
• Smaller airport facilities are critical in providing access to life-saving medical air transport and other services such
as disaster management and wildfire support.
• Tax revenue generated from aviation activities provide the state general fund more than $540 million annually.
Cities, special purpose districts, and counties receive about $243 million in annual revenue.
"Our last study was completed in 2001, so this also helps us provide some much -needed updates to economic data
such as the jobs, wages and types of businesses at each airport," Atkins said. "The 2012 study results speak for
themselves — and the message is overwhelmingly positive."
In 2001, airports generated 171,300 jobs, more than $4 billion in wages and $18.5 billion in annual sales output. And
while data sources differed slightly for the 2012 study, these categories showed dramatic increases of 77,200 jobs,
$11.3 billion in wages, and $32.4 billion in sales in the past decade.
SHARE ED EMAILL.fi PRINT 93 FEED
Subscribe to Daily Biz Briefs : Daily Biz Briefs Subscribe to
i Biz Briefs : Daily Biz Briefs
Follow our blog for all the latest in local business news. To get the top local business news, subscribe to Daily Biz Briefs email
newsletter. As a reader of this FREE email you get breaking business news each business day afternoon delivered right to
your email inbox.
Subscribe to Daily Biz Briefs
[Subscribe]
Archives
® May 2012
® April 2012
® March 2012
® February 2012
® January 2012
® December 2011
® November 2011
® October 2011
® September 2011
® August 2o11
Categories
® Blog (7729)
® Auburn (5)
® Banking/Financial Services (953)
® BE Chat Archives (1)
® Bonney Lake (1)
® Buckley (o)
® Centralia'(6)
® Charities (485)
® Non-Profits(489)
® Charities/Noii Profits (3)
® Construction (1144)
® Covington (o)
® Daily Biz Briefs (6)
® DuPont (i)
® Economy (1)
® Education (494)
® Federal Way(6)
® Fife (2)
+` Fircrest (o)
® Gig Harbor (4)
® Government'(12)
®' Health Care'(956)
MC\
3|NCERELY.
Therese White
From: tom read [trnyr@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 8:15 PM
To: Theresa White
Subject: Airport
I have lived due east of the end of the runway for almost 20 years. The first 10 were relatively noise free due to the
airport. The 2nd 10 have been progressively worse each year. I had the FAA boys at my house twice as well as the
former safety officer from the airport. In our visits we discussed how things could be made acceptable without
eliminating airport activity. The safety officer as well as the FAA and I agreed that if planes taking off from the south end
of the airport would fly around the towers instead of taking an immediate left turn after takeoff, it could be livable. This
was in reference to the numerous planes doing practice landings. It was pointed out that this was all voluntary, as planes
seem to have no laws or restrictions on where or when they can fly. Funny how vehicles have many such restrictions.
This has been improving due in part to the efforts of the current owner of Red Eagle Aviation and Mr. Leistiko I believe.
There are many pilots still who could care less about flying over someone's home over and over again at low altitude, as
well as those wonderful out of town pilots supporters want to invite here, who have loud obnoxious props and engines.
When it is so loud that you can't hear your television, or carry on a conversation, it is too loud.
This Kirtlye Lohof, who spoke so glowingly about her first solo flight gave me the chills. Taking her first flight alone over
our homes may have been great for her, but what if she nose dived it into one of them? All but one of the wrecks of
memory have been on our end of the airport. As I said, planes lift off and fly due east not west when they leave there,
unless they are already headed south. I have had numerous email conversations with Mr. Leistiko about the cropduster
from Dutton who flies at treetop level leaving and returning to the airport. This guy, according to Leistiko, has been
asked to fly around the towers or away from homes in general. This has gone on for several years with no change. This
guy should be flying out of the Glacier Airport with his loads of dangerous chemicals which can be smelled each time he
flies over -smells just like strong Raid bug spray. The FAA as well as Mr. Leistiko suggested I call the cropduster and
complain. BS? YES!
It has been suggested that private jets and twin engine airplanes would be landing here if the airport is expanded. I
don't know how many of you have heard these aircraft taking off and landing, but they are loud. The small jets sound
like fighter aircraft when they take off and they are almost all twin engine jets. There are a few twin engine planes that
land there now and they are loud both on landing and takeoff. The FedEx planes that land there seldom fly anywhere
but where they wish. The helicopters once kept a distance, but are now doing the due east thing as well.
It is my opinion that this property could be raking in millions for the city and area if it had been developed like the "mess"
up north. Downtown wouldn't have gone down the toilet as it has, and could have thrived as well. It could have been
planned out rather than what happened up north. The airport can never make the money that that would have -nor
employed as many people needing work. This end of town has been forgotten by the big money. I am opposed to
further expansion of the airport because it will destroy my property value which is all I have to fall back on at retirement -I
am 61 now. If the airport didn't enrich or cater to a select few as it does it may be different. It is kind of like the people
who brought the wolves back, they had their place once, but no longer, things changed. Development around the airport
should have been stopped if it was that important. It was the new wealth that came here and decided it was cool to
have an airport in town that brought new interest in it.
Please give this some deep thought! Thanks! Tom Read 29 Lower Valley Rd.
Theresa White
From:
Bart [mcfarling.bart@gmail.coml
Sent:
Tuesday, May 08, 2012 1:59 PM
To:
Theresa White
Subject:
City Airport
While I couldn't attend the comment session. I feel I should comment.
I support the plan to renovate the airport. I utilize the airport multiple times a year for business and pleasure.
I won't insult you by lecturing on who's wrong or right, the facts should speak for themselves free from
emotional bias.
As someone who's put thousands in the AIP fund via airline tickets and fuel taxes, I can't think of a more
deserving airport
to benefit from this fund.
Thanks,
Bart