Written Comments Rec'd During the May 7 PH1
Dear Mayor Fisher and Kalispell City Council:
Please accept this letter into the public record in regard to the proposed expansion of the
Kalispell City Airport.
Let me begin by stating that I am a certified public accountant whose practice consists of
providing consulting services to tribal governments and tribally owned enterprises. I have
worked with some of the largest tribes in the country in practically every state from upper state
New York to San Diego. A perennial issue I see in tribal country is the willingness to financially
keep afloat tribal enterprises that provide no essential governmental function and put an
economic drain on the primary governmental organization. My advice, and the practice of the
best run tribal governments, is to require that all of their tribally owned enterprises be self-
sufficient. The best run tribes that I have worked with own enterprises that generate hundreds
of millions of dollars of positive cash flow for their general government annually. Conversely,
other tribes I work with inject hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to subsidize what are
in essence commercial activities at the expense of essential governmental services that promote
the public safety, health and welfare, cultural, and educational needs of the community. What is
true of good governance for a tribal government holds for a local government as well.
The one fact that jumps out from the Kalispell City Airport Master Plan Update is just how
seasonal airport activity is and how very little activity actually exists at the airport. In an actual
field count for a one year period between September 2010 and September 2011 there were just
6,603 actual take -offs (and by extension an equal number of landings). In actuality, this
number is most likely inflated because the acoustic counter monitors used for the study were
unable to discern between actual take -offs and student pilots conducting touch-and-go
exercises. If the touch-and-go maneuvers were thrown out of the count, the true number of
actual take -offs would certainly be lower. Nevertheless, even with the touch-and—go maneuvers
included in the count an analysis of the average use of the facilities is revealing. From
November through March of the study period there were just over 6 flights in and out of the
airport each day. For the entire study period the daily average number of flights is just 18.
The Master Plan Update remarks that the actual number of flights during the study period is
considerably under the estimated 20,500 of take-off/landings forecast in the original 1999
Airport Master Plan. It then concludes that the actual count must be some sort of anomaly and
proceeds to use various sorts of soft data to adjust the baseline activity up. For instance, the
data for the period between November and March of the study period was assumed to have
been adversely affected by poor weather so the baseline number of operations was increased
by 316 to correct for an "unseasonably harsh winter". Moreover, the data was further
massaged using ramp surveys taken in 1987 that projected the annual general aviation
operations at 7,900--a 19% increase over what actual field count yielded.
A reasonable alternative to the use of fuzzy numbers to arrive at a baseline activity in order to
forecast future use would be to examine airport logs to discern that actual number of flights in
and out of the airport. Remarkably, the airport does not maintain a log of actual flight activity.
Aside from the implications that such laxity has for the overall safety of the public, it would
seem obvious that the city management would want to track this information in order to
determine cost/benefit analysis of the airport operations.
Finally, in the absence of any historical records of actual aircraft operation counts the Master
Update Study Plan utilizes forecasting tools used by the FAA known as the Terminal Area
Forecast (TAF) and Montana State Aviation System Plan (MSASP). It was reliance on the TAF
and MSASP projection methodologies in the 1999 Master Plan that overestimated the 2010
activity by 210% and 187% respectively.In essence, these tools examine the FAA Forms 5010
"Airport Master Record" to see the number of critical aircraft operating at the Kalispell City
Airport and multiply that number by a national average number of aviation operations in a year.
Although the Master Study Update acknowledges that these forecasts wildly overestimated the
number of occurrences that actually took place it used the data of average new aircraft added
to the airport's inventory of critical aircraft reported on the annual FAA Form 5010s as a basis
for projecting future airport occurrences. It did so while acknowledging that the new aircraft
added did not represent the net gain of critical aircraft at KCA since it did not take into
consideration those aircraft that were sold, retired, or otherwise disposed of from one year to
the next.
In the end, the Master Plan Update arrived
and landing):
Forecast Period
Current Year (2011)
Short term (2012-2017)
Medium Term (2018-2023)
Long Term (2023-2032)
at the following projected number of flights (take -off
Total Flights % of Actual 2011 Count
7,900 19.64%
9,598 45.38
11,296 71.07
13,843 100.09
Even with the rosy, unrealistic forecast figures contained in the Master Plan report, the forecast
use during the planning period does not warrant expansion from the current status B-I to B-II.
A simple cost benefit analysis calculation easily bears this out.
The projected capital cost of the expansion during the planning period is as follows:
Capital costs incurred to date (1999-2011)
$ 3,538,604
Short-term capital costs (2012-2017)
8,127,285
Intermediate capital costs (2018-2023)
4,945,485
Long-term capital costs (2023-2032)
2,662,880
Total projected capital cost of expansion $19,274,254
The projected number of flights for the planning period is as follows:
Short term (2012-2017) 47,900
Medium Term (2018-2023) 56,480
Long Term (2023-2032) 138,430
Total projected flights 242,900
The estimated capital cost per flight for the planning period is a whopping 79.35! While it is
true that the benefit of the capital costs will extend beyond the planning period it is also true
that this quick cost benefit analysis does not take into consideration the capital cost of the
existing facilities at KCA, the cost of lost tax revenue if the land were put to alternative uses, or
the fact that the estimated costs are based on 2012 construction costs which are likely to be
understated. All of the fore -mentioned factors should be taken into account if an accurate
cost/benefit analysis of airport activity were conducted. Moreover, the previous analysis of the
methodology used to arrive at the forecast baseline activity clearly shows that the projected
number of flights for the planning period will likely turn out to be grossly inflated. Using figures
that more closely resemble the actual acoustic counts would show an estimated capital cost per
flight exceeding $100 per flight.
At this point I would like to return to my initial comment about governmental enterprise funds.
Responsible fiscal management of governmental enterprises demands that they be self-
supporting and not a drain on public resources that ought to be reserved for essential
governmental functions rather than providing commercial activities that would otherwise be
provided by the private market. Since practically all of the costs of the capital expansion of the
airport are to be paid by taxpayers rather than airport operations you must ask yourself
whether you believe that taxpayers should underwrite the cost of each flight at KCA by $79.35.
Perhaps if these flights were for emergency purposes and lives were saved on account of them,
it would be possible to answer in the affirmative. But that is not the case. As far as I am aware
the vast majority of flights at KCA are for recreational purposes.
In conclusion, I urge you to see the proposed expansion for what it is, a costly duplication of
governmental services that is not needed and will adversely affect the City's ability to provide
the essential public services it should be most concerned with.
Respectfully,
James Loran
29 8t" Street E
Kalispell, MT 59901
May 7, 2012
Subject: Kalispell City Airport
Dear Mayor and Councilors:
The Kalispell City Airport is a valuable community asset. No comparison should be made
between the city airport property and other city properties. Each serves a unique purpose
and fulfills different needs in the community. Pilots may be small number, but so are
users of other city facilities, all of which are tax payer supported. How many of you use
the skate board park?
Of all the methods of private, motorized transportation, pilots are the most highly trained
and regulated. They must be reexamined at least on a biennial basis. Their aircraft are
annually inspected by FAA licensed inspectors. No other non-commercial group is
subject to the scrutiny and oversight than those in the aviation community. Additional
information is attached to these comments.
I would urge that you take a firm stand to keep the Kalispell City Airport open and
upgrade the facility to FAA standards. I have followed the rhetoric in the local press and
find most of the anti -airport statements to be emotional at best. Base your decision on
facts, not emotion. Do the right thing for the community and aviation.
Sincerely,
i�
Chuck Jarecki
Director, Recreational Aviation Foundation
28517 Rocky Point Road
Polson, MT 59860
406-883-2248
RAF Mission:
Keeping the legacy of recreational aviation strong by preserving, maintaining and creating
public use recreational and backcountry airstrips nationwide.
Kalispell City Airport Comments, May 7, 2012
Submitted by Chuck Jarecki, Poison, MT
Qualifications of pilots and aircraft
Pilots have large amounts of time and money invested in their training and their aircraft. Pilots
and their aircraft are held to a significantly higher standard than any other group involved in
personal, non-commercial transportation. Obtaining an automobile driver's license requires
passing a short written test and practical driving test only once in a lifetime. Motorized vehicles
that are operated off public roadways require no operator's license. This includes, but is not
limited to, snowmobiles, motorcycles, OHVs, trucks and cars. Boaters require no operator's
license. In many states there is no required periodic safety inspection of non-commercial
vehicles. Pilot requirements are far more stringent.
1) Pilot licensing
Pilots receive more exte-nsive training than any other group that operates non-commercial
transportation vehicles. To earl a private pilot's certificate the applicant must accumulate a
minimum of forty hours of flight time composed of both flight instruction by a certified flight
instructor and supervised solo time. The flight training includes landing and takeoff techniques
for short and soft (non -paved) airfields under various wind conditions. Flight training is rigorous.
Most persons require 60 to 80 hours of flight instruction and supervised solo time to earn their
private pilot certificate.
Applicants for a private pilot certificate must also pass a comprehensive multiple choice written
examination. The passing grade is 70% correct answers. Subject matter includes theory of flight,
aircraft performance as influenced by altitude, aircraft weight and air temperature, as well as
questions on weather, navigation, radio procedures, and FAA regulations. The written exam must
be passed before the applicant is eligible to take the flight test. If the applicant does not take, and
pass, the flight test within 24 months of passing the written examination, the written must be
taken again.
When the student pilot is deemed prepared for a private pilot certificate, the applicant must take
a comprehensive oral and flight examination by an FAA examiner or designee. The test covers
rules, flight procedures, cross country flight planning, weather, flight maneuvers, emergency
situations and the overall aptitude of the applicant. This oral exam and flight test usually lasts
more than two hours. Many pilots continue their flight training to earn advanced ratings to
improve their proficiency, safety and reduce insurance costs.
Pilots must pass a physical exam that includes general health, vision and hearing. The flight
physical is geared to determine the applicant's health in regards to flying a plane, not the ability
to engage in vigorous physical activities. It is more than just a routine physical. The physical is
also a check of cognitive ability, recent criminal history, and other related topics. Pilots are also
held strictly accountable for the accuracy and truthfulness of their responses to the medical
questionnaire. Flight physicals for private pilots are required every three years for those
individuals under age forty and every two years for those over that age. The flight physicals can
be administered only by an FAA designated medical examiner.
2) Recurrent training and record keeping
Pilots are required to keep a logbook of their flying time for the purpose of showing that they are
qualified to fly the plane they intend to operate and to demonstrate flight currency in that aircraft.
Every two years a pilot must have a flight review administered by a licensed flight instructor.
The successful completion of this review is entered in the pilot's logbook. The minimum content
of the review is one -hour oral critique of the pilot's aviation knowledge and one hour of flight
time.
The FAA offers a "Wings" program, which is a series of seminars and flight training sessions to
assist the pilot in maintaining flight proficiency as well as currency in the arena of regulations
and procedures. Continuous training is paramount to achieving a high level of safety. Pilot
participation may lower insurance rates.
There are several private flight schools that specialize in training pilots in mountain flying
procedures. They typically last several days with flying done in the morning and ground school
in the afternoon. There are several instructional books available on mountain flying operations
and safety.
Pilots are also subject to unannounced "ramp checks". This occurs when an FAA inspector
comes up to the pilot out on the flight ramp and requests to see the documents for both the plane
and pilot. No other transportation group is subject to such scrutiny without any probable cause.
The inspector also has the authority to "ground" the aircraft if it appears from an external
examination that the aircraft is not airworthy or incorrectly loaded. The pilot can be "grounded"
if required documentation (license, photo ID, a current medical certificate and biannual flight
review) are not on their person, or if they are observed to be in violation of certain regulations.
Based on the FAA inspector's observations the FAA may take additional enforcement actions
against pilots and aircraft owners. Enforcement actions may include suspension or loss of some
or all flight privileges, and monetary fines.
In summary, much emphasis is placed on safety throughout pilot training, certification, recurrent
training and aviation culture. Furthermore, the Federal Aviation Administration serves in a
strong oversight role in all aspects of aviation.
3) Drugs and alcohol
All pilots closely monitor their use of drugs and alcohol. Federal Aviation Regulations clearly
state that the operation of an aircraft where there is a pilot blood alcohol of at least .04 percent
and that eight (8) hours have not passed between drinking alcohol, the piloting an aircraft is
strictly prohibited. The standard limits for driving on public roads are .08 percent, twice the level
of pilot limitations. Pilots must report any drunken driving convictions to the FAA within sixty
days of the infraction, as well as report any conviction when renewing their flight physical.
Drunk driving or other misdemeanor convictions are grounds to deny the medical certificate.
This voids the Private Pilot Certificate, denying the pilot any flight privileges. The use of any
illegal drug is strictly prohibited. Any drug related conviction in a court of law results in loss of
the pilot's license. Illegal drug use must be reported during the flight physical. The use of
prescription drugs, and even legally purchased "over the counter" drugs, is highly regulated.
4) Aircraft licensing and maintenance
The design and licensing of aircraft is overseen and approved by the FAA. Every aircraft must
have at least one airworthiness inspection each calendar year. An FAA licensed aircraft inspector
must perform this task. The inspection is done regardless of how many hours that plane was
flown in the previous year. At the time of this inspection the inspector reviews the maintenance
literature to ensure that if there have been maintenance problems with other planes of that
particular make and model, the problems are corrected. All maintenance performed on the engine
and airframe is recorded in the aircraft logbooks. Certain problems, if not corrected, can result in
the aircraft being grounded until they are resolved and repaired.
5) Aircraft insurance
Almost all pilots and aircraft owners carry some level of insurance. Coverage falls into three
basic areas: liability, physical damage to the aircraft and medical. There are policies available for
the aircraft owner as well as the renter pilot. If the aircraft is encumbered by a loan, in all
probability insurance will be required by the lender. Most aircraft insurance policies are void if
the pilot commits an act that violates the Federal Air Regulations. Some policies are void if the
pilot engages in activities such as aerial photography, game spotting and dropping objects from
the plane.
May 7, 2012
The Honorable Mayor Tammi Fisher and Members of City Council
City of Kalispell
201 First Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
RE: Support for Expansion of City Airport to B-II Standards
Dear Mayor Fisher and Members of City Council:
On behalf of our Board of Directors, I would like to indicate the Chamber's support for expansion and
improvement of the City Airport to B-11 standards. The Chamber has supported the Airport as an
important City asset and amenity for many years. By exercising this option, the Council can reinforce an
important job and economic driver for the City, earn a reimbursement for the City, and improve the
safety of the community.
Other specific points in favor of the consultant's recommendation include:
• A total estimated investment in the $18 million range will provide much needed, good -paying
construction jobs over a several year period.
• This option provides a reimbursement to the City estimated at $349,704. This is a significant
return to the city treasury at a time of stressed tax receipts.
• Safety is improved by moving the airport further south which will increase the altitude of
aircraft on approach and during take -off.
• Tax increment funds could be used for maintenance under an "as is" option. But using federal
funds for safety improvements is more productive for the City and the facility.
• This alternative offers the best balance for current and mid-term needs. It still leaves the City
with options after the 20-year horizon for accepting airport enhancement funds.
We also encourage the City to look out past the twenty year horizon and establish a process to
determine whether this fully -assembled 135 acre, city -owned, downtown Kalispell site is still best used
as a general aviation airport 30, 40, or 50 years down the road. While growth has slowed over the past
few years, few could have predicted the drastic increase in demand for real estate over the past twenty
years. Already assembled sites with locations like this are difficult to come by.
We appreciate your consideration of our views on this important and difficult decision.
SincVre rye
14 Unpfr'reiner, President and CEO
alispell Chamber of Commerce
OFFICE 406.758.2800 • 406.758.2805 FAX • 15 Depot Park, Kalispell, MT 59901
May 7, 2012
City of Kalispell
Kalispell City Council
201 1" Ave. East
Kalispell, MT 59901
RE: Public Hearing - Kalispell City Airport (S27) - The airport master planning process for the Kalispell
City Airport.
Dear City of Kalispell Mayor and Council,
I write this letter in support of upgrading S27 to meet today's design standards for airports of its size. I
am a pilot and hangar my plane at S27. I also own property adjacent to the City Airport which is not
within the boundaries of the proposed land acquisition as spelled out on Site 1, Option B.
Although I would like to see the airport stay as it is, it isn't a practical solution long term. The cost to the
City and its tax payers to keep the current runway and taxiways in good repair would be an ongoing 100%
financial burden with no end in sight. In my opinion, upgrading the airport to the recommended
alternative as presented in Chapter Six — Improvement Alternatives - Site 1, Option B is the right solution
when one looks realistically at the sustainability of this public use facility. It meets the safety, noise and
fiscal demands necessary to move forward not to mention the economic side benefit this airport gateway
brings to the City of Kalispell and the Flathead Valley.
I sit on the Aeronautics Board for the State of Montana and review many community airport applications
requesting grants and loans to improve and upgrade their facilities each year. Many of these applications
are to help fund their FAA match needed to help meet the growing pains of their airports. Entering into a
contractual agreement with the FAA to improve S27 will be a long term solution with positive economic
benefits. As improvements and upgrades are needed to meet the demands of the ever -changing aviation
community, having the FAA as a partner to help fund those needs for the next 20 years and beyond is a
sound agreement option the City of Kalispell should strongly consider.
Sincerel ,
Charles Mamung
Po Box 784
Lakeside, MT 59922
406-844-3369 / 406-253-8661
2.2 Recommended Master Plan Concept
The recommended alternative as presented in Chapter Six — Improvement Alternatives is Site 1, Option B. This
alternative will provide future development of an airport that fulfills 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.
The recommended master plan concept, as presented on the Airport Layout Plan in Appendix Q, presents an
ultimate configuration for the airport that meets FAA design standards, enhances safety, increases overall airport
capacity, and provides a variety of aircraft storage options. A phased program to implement the recommended
development configuration will be presented in Chapter 7 - Capital Program.
Hello! I support the upgrade as outlined in the Stelling Engineering Master Plan
update document. Aside from some of the ridiculous arguments against the
airport, there are points that have been discussed which should be of concern to
everyone on both sides of this issue.
• Safety
o While this airport has a good safety record, the update will bring thg
facility up to current FAA safety specifications. It will provide for
correct lighting, glide slope guidance, widened taxiways, increased
distance between the runway and taxiways, mgation of the radio
towers, adequate runway protection zones and a slightly longer
runway, which, by the way, won't turn this into Kalispell Jet Center.
• Noise
• With an updated design, the noise produced by aircraft at the airpOT-)
will be more confined to airport property with the noise center bein;p
roughly four blocks south of its present location.
• Helicopters will be required to land on the south east portion of the
airport adjoining highway 93 and taxi from the proposed heliport to
o You will see growth in businesses on the south end of Kalispell.
Airport related business, hotels, restaurants and supermarkets will
continue to thrive. This airport will be a magnet drawing a diverse
variety of businesses producing a desperately needed economic boon
MUST=
The city will see an investment of roughly $20 million in this blighted
side of town. This breaks down to about $1 million per year for the
20 year period requested by the FAA assurances. Maintenance will
be offset by non primary FAA entitlements of $150,000 per year. TN..
city will see an influx of dollars to pay off the TIF fund when
reimbursements are realized.
These should be the discussion points. The FAA's money is designated for
projects exactly like this to invest in our community and better the lives of those
who live here. Is this a quanable investment? With the amount of emotion
generated over this topic, I believe that the answer to this is a resounding
Why cast a "NO"" vote for this airport? I can't see one. The airport assurances
only delay a gift to this city for $20 million dollars to protect the federal
investment during the time period in which they are in effect.
I; •lirqgg 11111111 I - - ! —
• How will the City of Kalispell raise the money to provide for maintenance?
• How will they city protect itself from lawsuits if the airport isn't maintained
to a level which provide for safe operations?
• Will the city fund removal of the radio towers? If so, where will it get the
money?
• How many non airport users are willing to see their tax money go to fund
this facility?
• Can TIF money really be used to provide overlays, lighting, radio tower
removal and runway protection zones? If so, then will the TIF ever sunset?
If a "NO" vote is cast and the upgrade recommendation is not taken, will
the FAA reconsider funding another master plan update and a new
environmental assessment if the results of such a vote are devastating to
571115167MITURM
rar
11111111 ill# t# i t# # ff-MUS M4
I am passionate about this project. I have faithfully served you for a decade on
the Kalispell City Airport Advisory Board. I know each and every one of you
personally. Would you please help me understand what your reservations mig
be on this, one of the largest and most beneficial projects available to our
population over the next decade? Please continue to partner with past council
who set the precedent and overwhelmingly supported this facility. I
111!pp ill 1� ri
ff6 7- T- 0
(,406 - 7 �d -5- 7 c ()