The URL can be used to link to this page

1. Resolution 5563 - Airport Master Plan and AlternativeCharles A. Harball Office of City Attorney City Attorney 201 First Avenue East P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903-1997 TO: Mayor Tammi Fisher and Kalispell City Council FROM: Charles Harball, Interim City Manager Tel 406.758.7709 Fax 406.758.7771 charball@kalispell.com SUBJECT: Resolution No. 5563 — Resolution Accepting Airport Master Plan and Approving Alternative BACKGROUND: Over the past two years the City of Kalispell has been in the process of updating its city airport master plan. That document was published in early April, 2012, was the subject of a council workshop shortly thereafter and received a well attended public hearing on May 7, 2012. The matter is now before the City Council for the purpose of considering the alternatives for the city airport going into the future. RECOMMENDATION: City Council may discuss Resolution No. 5563 that presents the two alternatives most debated by the members, but may choose any of the alternatives outlined in the update report or may, with proper findings, select another alternative not formally presented in the update report. After completing its open deliberation and making a determination, the council is advised to have the City Attorney's Office draft findings consistent with the discussions supporting the final determination which will be presented to council for approval by the majority. FISCAL IMPACTS: Any decision made by the council regarding the future of the airport will have significant fiscal impacts. Many of these impacts are fully explored by the update report. Future economic considerations are necessarily based upon assumptions which are generally always subject to debate. Respectfully submitted, Charles Harball, interim City Manager WHEREAS, on February 1, 2010 the Kalispell City Council agreed to retain Stelling Engineers, Inc. as engineers of record to serve as the City's airport consultants; and WHEREAS, on April 19, 2010 the Kalispell City Council approved and accepted an airport planning grant sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] for the purposes of updating the Kalispell City Airport Master Plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the purposes and direction of the FAA planning grant, Stelling Engineers, Inc. studied the existing Airport Master Plan, collected data regarding the current activity of the airport as well as projected activities, studied and reported on the existing state of the airport facilities as well as required facility upgrades to meet FAA requirements for funding and developed a number of alternatives for the City to consider in planning the future of the airport; and WHEREAS, as a required part of the planning process Stelling Engineers, Inc. advertised and held a public meeting on September 22, 2010 regarding the process of the study, advertised and held a public open house on January 18, 2011 to discuss and hear public comment on the status of the existing airport services, and advertised and held a public open house on April 25, 2011 to discuss and hear public comment regarding possible future facility upgrades; and WHEREAS, on April 4, 2012 Stelling Engineers, Inc., following consideration and comment by the FAA, provided the Final Master Plan Update document to the City which was then published on the City website and made available to the public; and WHEREAS, on April 9, 2012, the City Council held a public workshop with Stelling Engineers, Inc., and a representative of the Federal Aviation Administration to review the Final Master Plan Update document; and WHEREAS, on May 7, 2012 a duly noticed public hearing was held before the City Council to take evidence and opinion from the public regarding the Final Master Plan Update document and more specifically the alternatives proposed within the document; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the evidence within the Final Master Plan Update document as well as evidence derived from previous studies and has considered all of the written and oral testimony provided by the public. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL KALISPELL FOLLOWS: SECTION I That the Council accepts the Kalispell City Airport Master Plan Update submitted by Stelling Engineers, Inc. on April 4, 2012 and further resolves that the city shall proceed with a plan to develop the airport pursuant to Site I, Option B: Existing Site with ARC B-II Standards [Site I, Option D: Existing Site with ARC B-I Standards] as described in Chapter 6 of the subject Master Plan Update. SECTION II. The City Attorney is directed to draft additional findings of fact as necessary and advisable that is supported by the evidence, debate and discussion of the City Council that will augment this resolution and that may be made an amendment hereto upon the approval of the City Council. PASSED 1. i, ♦. 1 A , BTTHE i. • , , BY • ! THIS 2 IT DAY OF Tammi Fisher Mayor Theresa White City Clerk Cil Y 11%s,: ' 1 (Call for Prublic Hearing) ........... . jjjiviiiq� v I am a 60 year old Kalispell native and life long resident of Flathead Valley. I am 100% against any expansion of the city airport at it's present location. I believe it should be moved to another location. The helicopter traffic from Red Eagle has become very obnoxious, with touch and go landings going from as early as 6:30 am until dark. I think a business like this needs to be at the Glacier International, not in a residential area like it is now. Rick Hoylman 1240 7th Avenue East Kalispell, , 59901 tj 4121/12 Mayor Tammy Fisher and Kalispell City Council PO Box 199 Kalispell, MT 59901 We have lived in the city of Kalispell for 22 years and am writing in concern to the proposed expansion of the Kalispell City Airport. My first recommendation is to close the Kalispell City Airport. In reference to the 4/20/12 article in the Flathead Beacon, according to the Air Safety Institute of Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, there have been 8 incidents near the Kalispell municipal airport In 20 years. All aircraft should relocate operations to the Glacier Park International airport where there is fire/emergency support. This would create a safer environment for Kalispell City residents and decrease noise pollution. If unable to close the Kalispell City Airport, next recommendation would be to leave as is with no further investment. I choose to live in the Kalispell City limits knowing there was a city airport. I do not chose to live in the city with an airport expansion. This would allow bigger and more aircraft, bringing with it, a risk to safety and increase in noise F,ollution. Becky a d Steven Petrashek 1241 8th Ave East Kalispell, MT 59901 Theresa W"hite From: Wayne [wite69wolf@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 8:53 AM To: Theresa White Cc: Scott Davis Subject: Airport Hello, I will be in Oregon May 7th so I am writing you now to tell you how I feel. I do not want the airport enlarged or upgraded. I do not want my taxes going towards this endeavor. I do not want my property values to go down. I do not want Kalispell "tied" to a 20 year partnership with the F.A.A. I formally request that the Planning Board and City of Kalispell ask for a Conditional use permit for any modification or changes to the Kalispell City Airport, and that the Planning Board submit a memo to the City Council, City Manager, City Attorney and City Planning Administrator formally requesting, in writing, a conditional use permit be required for any modifications for the City Airport. Respectfully, Your Neighbor, Wayne McMichael 1235 6th Street West Kalispell, Montana, 59901 A Lifelong, Kalispell Born, Resident. From: Bill Cox [bilicox3@bresnan.net] Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 2:36 PM To: Theresa White Subject: Expansion & Upgrade of Kalispell City Airport Dear Mayor Fisher and Kalispell City Council: In considering the future of the Kalispell City Airport, it is an ABSOLUTE NO BRAINER to reject any alternative that would permit larger, noisier aircraft to fly low over the city. The Stelling Engineering consultants' report was written primarily from the standpoint of the aviation community and with the objective of extracting money for aviation from the federal government. The City Council's decision, on the other hand, should be made for the benefit of the city of Kalispell and all of its residents — a very different perspective. It is furthermore a no-brainer to reject an alternative that would relinquish local control over the airport's operations to a federal authority constituted to serve the aviation community, which includes a very small minority of Kalispell's residents. Private property rights have little relevance to this decision except for the need to treat existing leaseholders at the airport fairly. The airport itself is city property — in other words it belongs to us Kalispell residents — and it is your duty to choose the use that benefits us most. Please use your judgment on behalf of the majority of Kalispell residents. If you fail to do so, your constituents, the voters, will be the victims. Sincerely, William A. Cox 501 4`h Avenue East Billcox3(a)bresnan.net L U April 23, 2012 1 Kalispell Mayor & City Council members LLL G11"t LE Kalispell City Hall 201 First Ave E Kalispell, MT 59901 From all that has been said and done on the Kalispell city airport, the underlying heart of the issue that seems to be driving this debate is the $3 million the city spent on airport improvements (bad decisions] that the FAA will reimburse if the city airport is expanded as Stelling Engineers has proposed. The money spent is now water under the bridge and the old adage holds true —Don't throw good money after bad. 2. No expansion or upgrading using public or tax payer funds to lengthen, widen or move the runway. 3. No long term lease agreements and no renewals of long term lease agreements. Let existing long term leases expire. Only year-to-year leases. C Strict enforcement of airport rules with violations cause to terminate an existing lease Z 2- 6. Aircraft training schools should be removed or their flight times and days of operation restricted. Curfews for all aircraft should be strictly enforced and absolutely no night operations. WhiteTheresa From: Bob Nadvornick [Nad@WestVentureProperties.com] Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 10:10 AM To: Theresa White Subject: city airport suggestion Council members and Mayor: I am not a pilot, and have no personal interests with the city airport. It is my opinion that with all the controversy surrounding what to do about the airport, that a decision of this magnitude should be put to a vote of the citizens who are paying for it. In so doing, it would take the pressure off the council members, and leave it up to the voters to make the decision. That's what democracy is all about. Sincerely, West Venture Properties, LLC 17 First Avenue East Kalispell, Montana 59901 4 0 f R ". 'f 8 Theresa White From: Ry Keller [forestkeller@montanasky.us] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 7:09 PM To: Theresa White Subject: Kalispell City Airport Dear Council Members, I wanted to let you know that I am in support of the upgrade and modernization of the Kalispell city airport. I learned to fly at this airport and feel it is a great asset to our community. I believe the improvements including the runway realignment and extension will improve safety and reduce the noise over residential areas. I also feel the employment that will be created by the money spent on this project will help the local economy. The airport is self sufficient and would only bring in more money for the city after the improvements have been made. The local EAA Chapter 102 has been fortunate to host our free flights for kids 8 to 18 called "Young Eagles" at Kalispell City Airport. In the last two years we have introduced general aviation to over 160 kids. Everyone had a smile on their face when they returned from their first fight experience. Kalispell City Airport is perfectly suited to these types of actives. With its commercial traffic and tight security limiting access these types of programs would not be as viable at GPI. I have friends and clients from all over the U.S. that land at Kalispell City Airport and enjoy the activities that Kalispell and the Valley have to offer. They like the location and the small town feeling of landing at this local airport. I recommend that the City Council choose an option to keep the airport where it is and use FAA funds to make it safer and more user friendly. Please consider the history that this airport has and the try to visualize the future that it can have. Ry Keller Pilot, Business Owner and Kalispell City Chamber member From: Mark Evanoff and Jeanette Rehahn [euphoria@centurytel.net] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 8:52 PM To: Theresa White Subject: Kalispell City Airport Dear Mayor Fisher and City Council, There has been a great deal of media attention focused on the Kalispell City Airport regarding its perceived benefits to the community. The decisions that you are about to make will impact the community for years to come so I respectfully request that you consider my following comments. As a private pilot, aircraft owner, and Flathead Valley resident, I rely heavily on our City Airport for a wide range of services. A recent review of my expenditures associated with my flying into Kalispell for this past year, revealed that I spent in excess of several thousand dollars, all within 1/2 mile of the airport facility. The ability to walk to nearby restaurants and shops, and obtain fuel and service for my aircraft means that I can consolidate a lot of my shopping needs into one convenient trip. When family and friends visit, I'll convey them over to City airport as a special treat for them to experience the small airport atmosphere, usually spending some of their vacation allowance nearby in the process. In the flying community it's quite common to share tips and favorable destinations with other aviators. On many occasions while traveling, I've been told that it is the hospitality one receives at Kalispell City Airport that results in their flying into the Flathead Valley in the first place. These visitors value the amenities that are offered on site and in the immediate vicinity, benefits they are not afforded by the larger, impersonal complex known as Glacier International Airport. I'd like to comment in particular to the value of Red Eagle Aviation, the fixed base operator located on the Kalispell City Airport. This business concern, should be valued as a community resource for the entire community. They regularly host and sponsor "Young Eagle" events that afford young people the opportunity to experience flight at no charge, many of whom will go on to pursue careers in aviation. The full service aircraft maintenance shop at this facility is widely respected by the aircraft/ aviator community, with aircraft from other municipalities arriving for their expertise. And finally, Red Eagle Aviation has a flight school where I have regularly obtained recurrent flight instruction, free of the congestion and intimidating atmosphere of the larger commercial airport. Many of our public servants i.e. game wardens, sheriff's deputies, rely on the flight school and it's helicopters/ airplanes, for responding to their training and emergency response needs, which is in the best interest of all of us! The Kalispell City Airport should be valued as the community resource that it is. It is my hope that you will consider my impressions above when making your upcoming decisions. Thank You, Mark Evanoff Bigfork, Montana 1 Theresa White Fromm: Richard McAdams [richand]nanie@omaiicom] Sent: Monday, April 30,2U12Q12PM To/ Theresa White Kalispell City Council, We hope you realize that the City need this airport. We are in -favor of either leaving it as is or getting Fed. money to improve it. Richard & Joanie McAdams Theresa White From: Gerald Hurst [aerowight@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 6:50 AM To: Theresa White Subject: Kalispell City Airport Dear Council members, Whether you expand it or simply maintain it, please retain the very user friendly city airport where it is. I feel it is a very valuable asset to the city and those who depend on it who live elsewhere. I can't think of another airport in Montana where a pilot can land and have so many choices of services and businesses within walking distance. Thank you for your consideration. Gerry Hurst Theresa White From: Steve Dooling [steve@twre.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 10:54 AM To: Theresa White Subject: In support of the Kalispell City Airport CHRISTIE'S (3,REAT ESIATES Dear Council Members, I am writing in support of our city airport, Kalispell City Airport 527, and regret that I cannot be at the meeting next week. I am in full support of the city's idea to update the airport, and believe that the return on investment will be worth the money spent to do this. It would be foolish and a bad business move to not take advantage of the federal dollars being offered to the city to help with this endeavor as well. The city airport is a much needed facility for the city and provides numerous benefits to residents and pilots alike. Please mark me down as a big fan of the city airport! Best Regards, Steve Dooling Broker Associate Trails West Real Estate Exclusive Affiliate of Christies Great Estates 420 Electric Ave., P.O Box 275 Bigfork, MT 59911 Cell - 406.253.9117 Office - 406,837.1740 Fax - 406.837.7060 Steve0DTWRE.COIVl WWW.NwMontanaProDerties.com WWW.TrailsWestRealEstate.com TheresaF-T-TIhIte From: Wayne Hebert [wrhebert@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 11:01 AM To: Theresa White Cc: Mauri Morin; ry@eaal02.org Subject: Kalispell City Airport Councilmen. I can not attend the upcoming airport meeting. S27 is a valuable asset to Kalispell and the Flathead region. I support its continued development and growth. Wayne Hebert 406-370-4114 N18OWD Theresa White From: Steve Eckels [eckels@guitarmusicman.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 4:07 PM To: Theresa White c: Judi Funk Subject: HUD Funding/Airport Expansion Dear Mayor Below is a letter from HUD outlining potential funding as related to the airport expansion. Please give it a good serious look and draw your own conclusions. Thank you Steve Eckels' Mr. Eckels, I received your e-mail inquiry and forwarded it to HUD's regional environmental officer, David Rigirozzi, for a response. You can read his comments below. Please feel free to contact Mr. Rigirozzi if you have further specific questions. I hope this information is helpful. Best, Erik Amundson Field Office Director US Department of HUD 901 Front Street, Suite 1300 Helena, MT 59626 406-447-1488 www.hud.gov/montana From: Rigirozzi, David W Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 11:58 AM To: Amundson, Erik Cc: Brey, Terry L Subject: RE: Steve Eckel Re HUD Environmental Standards/Airport Expansion The expansion of a municipal airport could directly affect future HUD -funded projects in near proximity to the airport from an environmental perspective as controlled by HUD environmental regulations found at 24 C.F.R. Part 50 and 24 C.F.R. Part 58. Both these regulations are in existence to implement the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 and contain sections with implement related HUD environmental regulations found at 24 C.F.R. Part 51, Subparts B and D. 24 C.F.R. Part 51, Subpart B, contains HUD's noise hazard regulations which control how HUD -funded construction projects must be mitigated against the adverse effects of airport -generated noise. Subpart B primarily impacts housing projects and particularly new construction activities. The expansion of an airport might involve new runway development and/or changes in flight paths caused by new types of flight operations being planned. Changes in either of these could affect the geographical locations of airport noise contours as shown on the airport's noise contour map or overlay district (depending on the particular method used by the airport to present this data). Essentially, the present noise contours could expand into a new area of the community, thereby affecting HUD - funding considerations in an area previously unaffected by Subpart B's requirements. 24 C.F.R. Part 51, Subpart D, contains HUD's aircraft crash high accident potential regulations which control how HUD -funded construction projects and other activities located near the ends of airport runways must be mitigated against the adverse effects of a potential aircraft crash scenario. The particular areas of concern, as defined in Subpart D for civilian airports, are trapezoidal -shaped horizontal areas that start at the end of the runways and extend outward for approximately 2,500 feet depending on a particular airport's flight operations. HUD -assistance for new construction is prohibited in such areas and for rehabilitative construction and other HUD activities, such as property disposition, requires disclosure to a prospective purchaser or lessor of the hazard. Beyond these HUD environmental regulations, other HUD environmental regulatory requirements might also be triggered depending on particular elements presented by the airport's expansion design, such as the new placement of aboveground storage tanks containing fuels near an airport property's edge. Please re -contact me should you have any further questions or need any additional assistance. Sincerely, DAVID W. RIGIROZZI Field Environmental Officer U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Region V111 Office 25' Floor, 8ADE 1670 Broadway Street Denver, CO 80202-4801 303.672.5016 (voice) 303.672.5150 (fax) david. wrigirozzi(@hud.gov eckelsPquitarmusicman.com www.GuitarMusicMan.com facebook http://www.facebook.com/SteveEckeIsGuitar youtube http://www.youtube.com/eckelsl Theresa White From: Tom Husband [twhusband@gmail. com] Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 4:10 PM To: Theresa White Subject: Kalispell City Airport I have seen all kinds of airports have the same problem where a handful of complainers cause problems for the airport and the airport was there long before they were ever around to start their complaining ! It is too bad that they are not told to move if they don't like the airport as a neighbor and that they should never have moved close to the airport if they didn't like it in the first place ! It is a good thing I don't have the power to handle people like that as they would never be able to travel on another aircraft the rest of their lives ! I am sure they don't mind traveling by air as long as it is not in their backyard but someone else has to deal with the airport noise etc. I use the airport for fueling my aircraft and in years past used it as my destination,stayed at the Aero Inn and spent my money in the community while on vacation because it was very aviation friendly and ended up buying property on the Ferndale Airport for when I retired and am now living here in Ferndale for the past 5 years. The Kalispell Airport should remain as a viable asset to the community and be protected from further harassment by the City passing development ordinances to keep people from moving in close to the airport. There are many places that would be easier for the complainers to move too than places where the airport could be moved to. I hope the City Council makes the proper rational decisions to keep the airport where it is and to safe guard it's protection for the future. Tom Husband Theresa White From: The Kuffels [kuffel@cyberport.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 8:22 AM To: Theresa White Subject: Kalispell City Airport Since we will be out of state Monday please accept this email as our public comment. We totally support updating our airport. In addition to the reasons given by others we have a personal story about the economic impact of S27. Our first exposure to northwest Montana was landing at Kalispell City. We were able to walk across the street and have a fine lunch. If we had gone to Glacier Park International our option would have been which vending machine to use while seeing nothing of the region. Our experience was so positive we decided to include the Flathead valley in our list of places to check out after Betty finished medical school. We eventually settled in Whitefish but Kalispell City airport and its surroundings is what first drew us to the area. Tom & Betty Kuffel Theresa -Mite From: ELVYN5990@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 2:56 PM To: Theresa White Subject: Kalispell City Airport (S27) TO: Members of the City Council FROM: David Flatter, 280 Wakewood Dr., Kalispell, Mt. 59901 This communication is written to express my support for retaining and maintaining the Kalispell City Airport It has come to my attention that there is a small group of vocal residents of the valley who are in favor of having the airport (S27) closed due to the noise they say the residents of Kalispell and the airport area are subjected to. I frequent the area of the airport on a regular basis while shopping for food and other items in the businesses that are located on the South side of Kalispell along Hiway 93. 1 find that the main contributor to noise in the area is not operations at the airport, but highway noise. Surely, the city council would not consider closing , down the highway due to a few residents complaining of traffic noise, would they? The airport is a definite plus for the residents of Kalispell and provides access to the city businesses by being within walking distance to lodging, restaurants, and other shopping. It is, in fact, within walking distance to many of the county offices and is not to distant from the old downtown, main street area for walking. Before taking the noise complaints seriously, the source should be considered carefully. Do the locations of the homes of the most vocal lie in close proximity to the airport? The airport has been established in it's present location for many more years than the homes that are close by and of course the owners of the homes near the airport were surely aware that the airport was there when they made the decision to buy. Do you think that the city of Whitefish would consider closing down the railroad marshalling yard due to noise complaints from people who live ear the tracks? The subject of closing or moving the city airport is not new and the council has already spent to much time on the subject. Let's get on with the business of running the city and dismiss the frivolous subjects that are bound to arise in the environment in which we all live these days. Thank you for your time spent in reading my comments. Very truly yours, David Flatter PO Box 734 Kalispell MT 59903 May 2, 2012 City Clerk City of Kalispell PO box 1997 Kalispell MT 59903 Re: Kalispell City Airport Plans Please enter my comments into the official record of public comments on the future funding and maintenance of the Kalispell City Airport. I am opposed to any expansion of the airport and if the choice is between expansion and shutting it down, I would rather have it shut down. The existing level of use is acceptable but an increase in air traffic and/or size of planes would be detrimental to the wonderful residential neighborhoods of Kalispell, and would be contrary to the ambience of the historical district. I can't believe city officials want to proceed with this expansion after that plane crashed into a house! I sure never wanted to live in the approach zone of an airport when I bought my house at 1045 2"d Avenue East. At the current time there is just an occasional plane overhead, not too low and usually pretty quiet, and it's been that way a long time. I think it should stay that way. If expansion is desired, move the airport further out of town and make sure flight paths are away from heavily populated areas. Or let GPI take over the functions the city airport does now. Air services don't have to be practically in the middle of town. People are spoiled by how close it's been up till now. People elsewhere would laugh at someone complaining that they don't want the airport 15 minutes away. I hope you will keep Kalispell the lovely place it is now and not devalue property values for half of the town. Somehow it seems that what out of towners want has become more important than what the majority of the people that live here want. Sincerely, Roseanne Bloom futltime resident, homeowner, and taxpayer of Kalispell Theresa White From: Wes [wes@bendcable.com] Seat: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 9:54 PM To: Theresa White Subject: May 7th Meeting Regarding Kalispell City Airport I am a private pilot and aircraft owner from Bend, Oregon. About once a year I fly into the Kalispell City Airport to visit friends and enjoy the area. While I'm only there once a year to spend my recreational dollars, I am one of several thousand others that use that airport as the entry point to your community. A healthy and vibrant airport is an asset to any community, providing significant economic benefits well beyond the fences of the facility. I encourage you to support it for many years to come and I look forward to my next visit to your beautiful community. Sincerely, Wes Wright Bend, Oregon From: Fred Hasskamp [fredflys@Yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 7:54 AM To: Theresa White c: Fred Hasskamp Subject: Kalispell City Airport I wish to go on record in SUPPORT of maintaining this most valuable asset for the future. "City" airport is one of the most convenient airports for those who fly in the nation. I have personally used "city airport" to attend meetings, hold clinics, patronize the nearby motels, restaurants and stores. The economic impact "City airport" has on the Kalispell area has to be huge. Fred Hasskamp 115 Central Ave. Hamilton, MT 59840 363-1742 Sent from my iPad 1 Theresa it From: jpress@centurytel.net Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 12:07 PM To: Theresa White Subject: Proposed City Airport Expansion Dear Kalispell City Councilmembers: I have been involved for a number of years with the deliberations on the Kalispell Municipal Airport. Through those years, and many reports, studies, and hearings, my opinion has remained the same: that the City Airport should NOT be expanded beyond its present size or aircraft usage, nor additional monies be used for improvements. In addition, I feel there should be a plan for a multi -year phase -out and termination. Fully adequate facilities and services are available at Glacier Park International or other facilities elsewhere in the valley, should private small plane owners desire. The land now occupied by the city airport should be returned to private and/or other municipal usage. I refer you particularly to the recent excellent Letter to the Editor of the Daily Interlake from Frank Thomas, especially the request for a vote by Kalispell City taxpayers prior to any further action on this issue. Respectfully, Theresa ,- From: Mountain AirDance MACPHERSON [jemacpherson@msn.com] Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 7:44 PM To: Theresa White Subject: Kalispell City Airport To the members of the Kalispell City Council, I am a Montana pilot that uses the Kalispell City Airport. I want to show my great support of Kalispell City Airport. For the last 22 years, I have landed many times at Kalispell City Airport andI have stayed and enjoyed the beautiful Kalispell area, often I stay at near by motel, have coffee at a local coffee shop and enjoy meals at some of the fine restaurants in the Kalispell area. Over the years, I have used the airport as a home base for air search operations, for aviation conferences such as The Western States and International Air Search and Rescue Conference and the annual Mountain Air Search and Rescue Clinic. This airport is important as it is in walking distance of many hotels and restaurants and other services. Another point that I might make for Kalispell City Airport is that Kalispell City Airport often has the better weather making it an alternate to Glacier Park International Airport. Small airports are important to the community and to the state and the Kalispell City Airport is one of our Montana jewels. Please consider all options to keeping Kalispell City Airport open and thriving. Thank you for your considerations, Jeanne MacPherson Jeanne MacPherson Master Flight Instructor Mountain Airance 11c Website: http://www.mountainairdancellc.com/ "What do you want to do with your one wild and precious life?" Mary Oliver il�� Mll =1 T From: Jim & Kathy Hadwin Ukhadwin@?bigsky.net] Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 9:11 PM To: Theresa White Cc: 'Scoff Richardson' Subject: Kalispell City Airport Gentlemen, This email is to convey to you my 100% support for the Kalispell City Airport, 527. 1 believe it to be an important asset to the city's infrastructure. It is important to many local business men. It serves as link for Angel Flight West and other charitable enterprises. It is a base for local search and rescue missions. It reduces pressure of GA aircraft from Glacier Park International Airport. I send this to you as I am unable to attend your upcoming review meeting since I am on travel. I am a local pilot in the Flathead Valley and find 527 to be an important resource. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Jim Hadwin Bi9fork Pilot Jim & Kathy Hadwin 2640 Puuholo Road #114 Koloa, HI 96756 Cell 406-250-6078 Email adwin@bigsky.n1 1 Theresa White From: Kristi Carroll [bkcarroll@mt.net] Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2012 4:20 PM To: Theresa White Subject: Kalispell City Airport Upgrade Dear Mayor and City Council Members, Hello, I would like to offer my support in accepting FAA funding to upgrade the Kalispell City Airport. I grew up in Kalispell on 4t"Ave West and now live with my husband in Townsend, MT right across from where the Army National Guard has a test fire range. We didn't realize there was a test fire range so close at the time we bought our land. We have helicopters fly over and artillery cannons going off at all times of the night and day, especially on the weekends. We enjoy watching the helicopters fly over and have gotten used to our windows rattling from the cannon blasts`. The point is, I hope you all appreciate what the S27 has to offer and realize that the airport has been there for 83 years and the people are the ones who have moved in and around it. I know there are people in the community that are against the upgrade. Those people who chose to live in the city and around the airport are the ones who should assimilate to the atmosphere they chose to live in instead of trying to destroy it. I don't think they realize how the airport actually helps the community as a whole. Being part of the aviation community, my husband and I have paid into the FAA fund and support S27 in receiving the funding available for this upgrade. The Kalispell City Airport offers my husband and I, as well as many others, the convenience of flying into Kalispell in our small airplane to visit family and go shopping. S27 offers convenient grocery shopping, car shopping, camp trailer shopping, restaurants, motels, antique stores, and even the 'Quilt Gallery' fabric store for us quilters, which Glacier Park International does not. My husband and I own almost 200 acres in the Flathead Valley and like being able to fly into the Kalispell City Airport. We would like to see S27 get a facelift so we and others can enjoy it for many years to come. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Kristi Gronley Carroll 1 Theresa White From: Chuck Jarecki [skywagon@centurytel.net] Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2012 7:52 AM To: Theresa White Subject: City airport Subject: Kalispell City Airport Dear Mayor and Councilors: My wife, who is also a pilot, and I use our small aircraft as a means to travel for business and pleasure, just as others use their car, which may cost more new than many aircraft flown today. When we are researching for places to overnight or visit for a few days, we look for airports that have food, lodging and other services close - by. The Kalispell City Airport typifies that perfect airport to serve our needs. Throughout the aviation community, S27 is well known as a hassle free airport with friendly service and a good selection of nearby amenities. The Kalispell City Airport serves as a location for pilots visiting the back -country airstrips to re -provision and purchase fuel. I have met pilots and their families from all over the country who have flown to Montana, camped at one of the wilderness airstrips and then flown to Kalispell City Airport to purchase goods and services and patronize nearby businesses. The Recreational Aviation Foundation (RAF), a national organization of which I am a director, is planning to hold a major leadership training program (not flight training) in the area this June, using Kalispell City Airport and its associated food and lodging facilities. The RAF chooses to support communities that are aviation friendly. This gathering will bring in about fifty people, most flying their own planes. If it were not for the location of the Kalispell Airport next to food and lodging facilities, the event would, in all probability, be held somewhere else. Most of attendees will likely remain in the area for several days to pursue other recreation activities. 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 somewhat laughable. Do the right thing for the community and aviation. Sincerely, Chuck Jarecki Chuck Jarecki, RAF Director 28517 Rocky Point Road Poison, MT 59860 406-883-2248 RAF Mission: Theresa White From: Dr. Jevon Clark Nevon@kalispellvet.com] Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2012 8:03 AM To: Theresa White Subject: airport Dear Mr. Saverud and Mr. Zauner and other council members, I won't be able to attend Monday's council meeting where you'll be hearing public comment on the city airport, but I did want to quickly let you know my position. I (honestly, thankfully) do not have all the information regarding this decision that you all have had to pour over so my opinion on the matter isn't really based on fact. Therefore, I trust you to do what is fiscally responsible for the city of Kalispell regardless of if that means expanding, moving, closing, or whatever. I simply want a decision to be made so this issue can move forwards towards getting resolved. Thanks for serving the community. Jevon Clark 173 Buffalo Stage Kalispell 1 Theresa. From: John McKenna [John@gomckenna.netj Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 6:27 AM To: Theresa White Subject: Kalispell City Airport Greetings Council Members, I am John McKenna of Bozeman MT. I am writing in support of maintaining the Kalispell City Airport. I have been an active MT. based general aviation pilot since 1970. Our business has taken us all over the state of MT., but one of the locations that we frequent on a regular basis is Kalispell. Not only do we have a number of business contacts in the area, but we also thoroughly enjoy the recreational side of your area. In addition we own property in the North Fork and frequently use Kalispell as the jumping off point to begin our time in that area. I point this out to let you know that I am a frequent user of the Kalispell City Airport and find it to be a convenient, useful, and enjoyable place to come and go from. It is such a convenient business location and of course the local amenities such as groceries, lodging, meals and more are a prime reason to use the airport, not to mention all the excellent on airport services that are available as well. It has been my airport of "choice" for the majority of my flying into and out of the area. Bringing the airport up to current FAA standards would not only benefit the facility itself, but would surely enhance the area and without a doubt be a great value to the traveling public. These airports are of extreme value to so many and to let a few who "contend" it is a safety issue or disturbance to their way of life would be an unfortunate situation. It appears that the folks that would like it closed, moved or otherwise are thinking of only themselves. It is rather obvious that the agenda of those that want this facility closed are basing their arguments on inaccurate information, fear mongering, and anecdotal type information. I would urge you to put aside the selfish desires of a few and make a decision that is good for not only Kalispell and the airport, but for the rest of the public that have used and will continue to use this airport for a long time to come. Thank you for your consideration. John J McKenna Jr MSFS McKenna Financial 1711 West College St Bozeman, MT 59715 (406) 587-5166 Office (406) 581-8234 Cell John@mckenna-financial.com WhiteTheresa From: rick thompson [thompson907O6@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 10:10 AM To: Theresa White Subject: City Airport, leave it as is Mayor Fischer, and Fellow Council Members: We are residents of Ward 4 and are STRONGLY AGAISNT the airport expansion. We have no problem with AS IS city airport. Although if the as is approch is not feasible we would support the airport being moved or closed down. We feel the expansion would serve few of the citzens of Kalispell and be for an elite group. As for using the Airport expansion fund we are strongly against it. Less big goverment involvment in any community is for the better of all. Thank -you for your service and we appreciate your time in this matter of great importance to all. Rick & Kathy Thompson 284 Buttercup Loop Kalispell, MT 59901 Theresa White From: Webmail nebomot [nebomot@bigsky.net] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 10:40 AM To: Theresa White Subject: City Airport My husband and I are taxpayers in Ward 1 of the City of Kalispell. We are very much opposed to the expansion of or putting any money into the City Airport. There seems to be a very small percentage of people in Kalispell who actually use or have even been on the City AIrport property. Neither my husband or I have ever utilized or been on that property, and in talking with other Kalispell taxpayers find that none of them have either. Expansion would only increase the safety and noise factors. Once again, without going into a lengthy letter, we are opposed to the expansion of or putting any money into the City Airport. Let's use one of the many fiscally worthwhile options to make better use of the property for the majority of taxpayers of Kalispell, and move the Kalispell City Airport to Glacier International Airport. Bonnie and Neal Motichka 1 WhiteTheresa From: Debi Wise [swagger_d@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 11:36 AM To: Theresa White Subject: Airport City of Kalispell, I am sending this to convey my approval to expand the city airport to make it a more efficient and safe facility. Debi Wise Theresa White From: Fred Leistiko Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 11:52 AM To: Theresa White Subject: FW: Supporting S27 -----Original Message ----- From: SKYDIVE LOST PRAIRIE[mailto:fredoskydivelostprairie.com] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 11:36 AM To: Fred Leistiko Subject: Supporting S27 Fred, Please bring forward my comment that the Kalispell City Airport is a vital and needed asset to the community. Keep us flying at S27. Thanks, Fred Sand Aircraft owner and user of S27. ---------------------------------- Skydive Lost Prairie, Inc. FFI: Fred Sand Voice: 406-858-2493 Toll Free: 888-833-5867 FAX: 406-858-2405 www.SkydiveLostPrairie.com Join us at FACEBOOK http://www.facebook.com/ rg oup.php?gid=54792876016 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 JudiFunk From: Fred Leistiko Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 12:20 PM To: Judi Funk Subject: FW: LOVE the blue skies sound this morning! Please forward to Council. From: S Sande [mailto:ssande(dberport.net] Seat: Monday, May 07, 2012 10:28 AM To: Fred Leistiko Subject: LOVE the blue skies sound this morning! I am an airport lover! I am a county resident on the north side of Kalispell. A morning like this with its beautiful blue sky and the sounds of small private planes warms my heart & soul! But, if these sweet sounds of flying on this gorgeous morning are being performed by or for dissenters, then I hope that will be exposed at the hearing. The sounds of private planes flying over signals a special kind of day; even if I am not `in the air', it washes with memories of times in the sky! Can't be explained — but, to me, it is precious! Kalispell City Airport has been in its place for many, many years! Keep it for years to come! Thank You Sue Sande Kalispell MT Theresa White From: Gary Collier [kalispellneon@bresnan.net] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 2:28 PM To: Theresa White Subject: city airport To whom it may concern, My name is Gary Collier and I would just like to express my thoughts and feelings about the city airport task at hand. My first hand experience started back in the 1940s when I took my first airplane ride out that airport. I also bought my first airplane, a 182 Cessna, with my old business partner, Jack Foust, back in 1980s. Jack himself had taught many students at our local high school how to fly through his experience and that airport. That same airplane helped locate grizzly bears for years around this area with its locater that was placed on it. I have many personal experiences through this airport as well, such as flying with Ted Perod, the first ALERT helicopter pilot. With his help we abolished the early bugle rifle season that was located everywhere in Montana that destroyed our Elk heard for a couple years. I can also name numerous of my personal friends that locate and spot all local and national forest fires that use this airport every season. This airport helps our economy throughout the tourist season as well flying people in and out of the Spotted Bear and Schaffer areas. And also I know one the of subject of expanding and or moving the airport was to be able to occupy jets. To my understanding it has already been established that jets can and have landed safely at this airport. I hope my letter and been helpful and informational to you today. I appreciate the reading and handling of this letter extremely. I just feel that the long standing locals in this area would feel that the airport, where it is, is where it should stay and it should stay exactly as is for the people who respect how much it has done for our community and strives for what it will continue to do for our community. Thanks again, Gary Collier 1 Theresa White From: jpress@centurytel.net Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 2:39 PM To: Theresa White Subject: City Airport Decision May 7, 2012 Dear Mayor Fisher and City Councilmembers: I am writing in opposition to any upgrade or expansion of the city airport. I feel it would be fiscally irresponsible, given the many uncertainties surrounding FAA involvement and potential funding. This funding is not guaranteed. If the city fails to meet all the requirements for expansion, it is my understanding that there would BE no funding. Also, federal budgets are presently being cut and funding priorities reconsidered that could significantly affect the amount of monies Kalispell might actually receive from the FAA, even IF the city could meet all the requirements. Expanding the airport would bring an increase in air traffic, noise, and significant safety concerns thail would negatively impact the quality of life for those of us who live, work, or attend schools and churches in the area. I respectfully request that the council not move forward with the option to upgrade or expand the city airport to BI or 1311 standards. Judith Pressmar 844 Third Avenue East Kalispell 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 at the following projected number of flights (take -off and landing): Forecast Period Total Flights % of Actual 2011 Count Current Year (2011) 7,900 19.64% Short term (2012-2017) 9,598 45.38 Medium Term (2018-2023) 11,296 71.07 Long Term (2023-2032) 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 7.! 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. Sill rely, E Chuck Jarecki Director, Recreational Aviation Foundation 28517 Rocky Point Road Poison, 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 Poison, 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 extensive training than any other group that operates non-commercial transportation vehicles. To earn 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. KALISPELL =060ME Providing Economic, Community, and Workforce Development Services www.kalispelichamber.com 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-II 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. Sinc4reir—t' -�__ 5 Un, .. reiner, President and CEO lispell 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, 1 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 Manning 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. /Z 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 #• sides of this issue. Safety o While this airport has a good safety record, the update will bring tht 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, mitigation 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 o With an updated design, the noise produced by aircraft at the airport will be more confined to airport property with the noise center being roughly four blocks south of its present location. o Helicopters will be required to land on the south east portion of the airport adjoining highway 93 and taxi from the proposed heliport to their tie down areas. * Jobs and economy 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 to the south side of Kalispell. now$%= • 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. The 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 quantifiable investment? With the amount of emotion generated over this topic, I believe that the answer to this is a resounding "YES"! 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. If you are considering a "'NO"" vote, please also consider the following: * 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 maintainei 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, fighting, 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 our community? * Can the city budget afford a multimillion dollar hit for the airport? 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 might 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 councils who set the precedent and overwhelmingly supported this facility. Thank you for your continued consideration. 4-1 r x �......� .�,. ..a :n�. �:_ �" ..,:� .� � � � .tea.,. �� .3.. �. ��.�` � � Theresa 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, 293 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. I support the selection of Site 1, Option B as the preferred alternative and encourage t!41 Council to adopt 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. Sa et 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 Lake. 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 8 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 0 is a federally funded alternative that would result in a local match (1096) 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 0 because the facilities at GPI are to higher standards than neededfor 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 What makes the difference is the stronger score for Site 1, Option B in the non - aeronautical category, while meeting the federal standards inthe aeronautical category, resulting inthe highest score overall. That should make the Cit«'sdecision 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 inputfrom 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 necessary for 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 isthe 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. IslAllen[hrismon ALLEN B. CHR1SIVIAN Theresa White From: Shannon Natty [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 54•oF Forecast [ ][Search] Business MEDIA We've got yuu EXAMINER GROUP BLOG / APRIL 2012 / AVIATION ECONOMIC BENEFITS SOAR Apr30, 2o12ii:o5AMDa i ly 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 EMAIL PRINT FEED Subscribe to Daily Biz Briefs : Daily Biz Briefs Subscribe to Daily Biz Briefs : Daily Biz Briefs About This Blog 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 ® Febr uail, 2012 ® JanuarV 2012 ® December 2o11 ® November 2011 ® October 2011 ® September 2011 ® August 2011 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/Non Profits (3) ® Construction (1144) ® Co,ington (0) ® Daily Biz Briefs (6) ® DuPont (1) ® Economy (1) ® Education (494) • Federal Way (6) ® Fife (2) ® Fircrest (o) ® Gig Harbor (4) ® Government (12) ® Health Care (956) 2 -j 0 F-: rr IL Z C/) w 0 Wa F- FV W 3: U) Cl) 0 i Qm < Tic) LL >- JF- LL W W'a >wc w cn 0 a 3: w o 0 Co C/) W --) w 7 w 0 LL w om>-m w 0 U LL m� cn tr w 0 F- CL < < LL LLI 0 1 m C/) 0 w W 0Wj m 0 F- M < () m 0- 0 cf) z 0 w fr �c 0 a:?. — z 0 Ljj < cr- M w OCOIr > -F- 0 >- C) W 0 2Z OF- I- z w Cl) w X 0 Ir w P o m 0 tr w U,J b CL Cr- w Ir a- 0 m x cy) <:c < ir w CD cn w o < cl) ca W < o z w i W. z F -ZF- 0 T- F- >— Ir Z >- o m WWI w LL F- 0 Z a 0 W w M 2 C6 a- CL LL F- 0 w w cr< -,e 0 cl) ir 0 D w U) LL < Q- W m m 0 W Cc M w 7 W W,,4 w -J F- - — 0 w m 0 < LLJ 0 0 Cf) F- r /: Cl) Lao, 7 7 U) (D U) CD z 0 z 0 W Lo < < F- W:E CM Y W 0 F- W W W F- uj 2 > _j w w z CL Ljj CD > 0 w W" C\l U 0 M z a- 0 z w LLJ Q U) T CL -j 1, w < F; M CL c co w m w x w Lr z w v ��Colj U- m Cf) < U) CC Theresa White From: tam 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. From: James Loran Dameyloran@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 9:48 AM To: Theresa White Subject: Cautionary Tale of Failed Airport Expansion Mayor Fisher and City Council: I would like to direct your attention to two articles in the New York Times that serve as a cautionary tale about over- reliance on promises made in regard to FAA funding. The first article, "Storm Gathers Over Resort Town's Airport" appeared March 29, 2002. The similarities with articles running in our local papers regarding the proposed city airport are uncanny. Especially relevant are the claim of proponents in favor of accepting $30 million from the FAA for the Mammoth Lakes' city airport expansion about the economic boon the project will have for the community. Also germane are the assurances of FAA officials in regard to the availability $30 million for the project. Fast forward ten years to April 13, 2012 for an up -date on this story in the NYT article, "Mammoth Lakes, CA Faces Bankruptcy". The story describes how the city is looking at declaring bankruptcy because nothing about that project turned out the way proponents of the project presented it to the community ten years earlier. Today the city of Mammoth Lakes cannot pay a $43 million legal judgment in a development dispute that are rooted in FAA funding that failed to come through as promised as well as serious restrictions on the use of the limited FAA funds that did come through. Sadly, the city of Mammoth Lakes has been forced to cut its work force from 130 to 70. Moreover, all projects the city had planned in coming years have been put on hold indefinitely. One resident is quoted as saying, "I have a couple of young kids, and I'm worried about the schools." Others describe the ill-fated decision to purse the airport expansion as "tragic". Before making your decision in regard to the airport expansion I urge you to make sure you have done the math and weighed the downside of this project. Is it worth putting so much for so many at risk when the anticipated benefits are so small and accrue to so few? Respectfully, James Loran 29 8`" Street East Kalispell, MT 59901 From: Bart [mcfarling.bart@gmail. com] 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 jM 1' From: Bill Cox [billcox3@bresnan.net] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 12:44 PM To: Theresa White Subject: Compromise on Airport Expansion Dear Mayor Fisher and Kalispell City Council Members: At the May 7 council meeting both proponents and opponents of expanding the city airport presented interesting and forceful arguments. If I were a debate judge, I would give the proponents the edge, as they have access to more facts and figures and presented their views passionately. I hope, however, that you will not buy us a large slice of pie in the sky. As an example, Mr. Gross, who spoke for his aircraft maintenance business, stated that he has 33 highly paid employees in Missoula but only one in Kalispell, because he "has no airport in Kalispell." The implication was that, if the expansion is carried out, his 15 employees from the Flathead Valley would be working here instead. That is a very dubious proposition. The Missoula airport is larger than Glacier Park International, and city airport will never be remotely comparable to it. The proposed airport expansion would, of course, create some temporary construction jobs (emphasis on temporary). By the time it could occur, however, the valley and the country probably will have returned to full employment. The aversion of flyers at city airport to flying out of GPI seems to be based on the better selection of restaurants near their airport and the need of some to hire transportation from GPI. These issues do not justify major taxpayer expense. They also like having their own tax -financed playpen instead of having to deal with GPI's management. Nevertheless general aviation shares airports all over the country with airlines and cargo operations . The comparison to public facilities for other subsets of city residents also is frivolous. The skateboard park requires perhaps one ten -thousandth the land and investment of the airport and serves more people in a day than the airport does in a week. The 70-year-old airport proponent who stated that he had not used the public schools lately really brought that issue into focus. Public education is a fundamental municipal function critical to our culture and our economy, and most families use those facilities as children and as parents. A publicly financed airport for a handful of well-to-do flyers does not have the same priority. The issues posed by businesses now located at city airport must be taken more seriously. Even though I personally prefer to shut the airport down for safety and noise reasons, I have concluded that, to treat business owners and employees fairly, the best resolution of this controversy is to maintain the city airport as it is. This decision would protect their interests without saddling the city with a larger more expensive airport in a poor location with its substantial disadvantages for residents of the city. Therefore I appeal to you to defeat the motion to implement the Stelling recommendations and to adopt a policy statement that the airport should be maintained in good operating condition for the duration of existing leases. At some point before that time the issue will have to be revisited. I believe that a decision to expand the city airport and to accommodate more, larger and noisier aircraft would be regarded by a large majority of your constituents as foolish. They will ask themselves why such a decision was taken. The only answer would seem to be that special interests again trumped the interests of the broader community. Please don't make this mistake. Sincerely, William A. Cox 501 4`11 Avenue East Kalilspell WhiteTheresa From: Jay Pratt [jay-pratt@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 3:44 PM To: Theresa White Subject: Airport Please do not close your airport. I spend most of my vacation money flying to Montana. I would not go to Kalispell if you did not have a place to land. You have a real gem of a place. Thank you Jay Pratt N7780K Cessna 180J 584 Aviator Dr Fort Worth,TX 76179 Theresa White From: Rockwood Shepard [rockwoodshepard@gmail.coml Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 5:44 PM To: Theresa White Subject: Airport comments City Council, I have flown into 527, Kalispell city Airport many times for vacations and had a great time. I understand there is a small vocal group trying to stop expansion and even close the airport. In my opinion, that would be a terrible mistake. The airport is in a great place and provides access to your town for fishing, hiking, and just visiting a great part of the state of Montana. Without the airport, we would not be able to visit - Kalispell is not the easiest place to get to! Having the ability to fly in allows us to stay at Soiree Lodge or the Grand if we want to be in town. I just wanted you to know that just because I do not live in Kalispell, I still spend my money for lodging, food, and fuel, when we visit. That goes away without an airport. Sincerely, Rockwood Shepard River Edge Colorado 970-945-2113 Office 970-456-5325 Cell rockwoodshe-ard@gmail.com Theresa White From: Scott Davis [maxwellsnortsnort@live.com] Seat: Friday, May 11, 2012 10:06 PM Subject: Q.S. Dear Mayor Fisher and Kalispell City Council Members: At the May 7 council meeting both proponents and opponents of expanding the city airport presented interesting and forceful arguments. If I were a debate judge, I would give the proponents the edge, as they have access to more facts and figures and presented their views passionately. I hope, however, that you will not buy us a large slice of pie in the sky. As an example, Mr. Gross, who spoke for his aircraft maintenance business, stated that he has 33 highly paid employees in Missoula but only one in Kalispell, because he "has no airport in Kalispell." The implication was that, if the expansion is carried out, his 15 employees from the Flathead Valley would be working here instead. That is a very dubious proposition. The Missoula airport is larger than Glacier Park International, and our city airport will never be remotely comparable to it. The proposed airport expansion would, of course, create some temporary construction jobs (emphasis on temporary). By the time it could occur, however, the valley and the country probably will have returned to full employment. The aversion of flyers at city airport to flying out of GPI seems to be based on the better selection of restaurants near their airport and the need of some to hire transportation from GPI. These issues do not justify major taxpayer expense. They also like having their own tax -financed playpen instead of having to deal with GPI's management. Nevertheless general aviation shares airports with airlines and cargo operations all over the country. The comparison to public facilities for other subsets of city residents also is frivolous. The skateboard park requires perhaps one ten -thousandth the land and investment of the airport and serves more people in a day than the airport does in a week. The 70-year-old airport proponent who stated that he had not used the public schools lately really brought that issue into focus. Public education is a fundamental municipal function critical to our culture and our economy, and most families use those facilities as children and as parents. A publicly financed airport for a handful of well-to-do flyers does not have the same priority, especially when we have an excellent one nearby. The issues posed by businesses now located at city airport must be taken more seriously. Even though I personally prefer to shut the airport down for safety and noise reasons, I have concluded that, to treat business owners and employees fairly, the best resolution of this controversy is to maintain the city airport as it is. This decision would protect their interests without saddling the city with a larger more expensive airport in a poor location with its substantial disadvantages for residents of the city. Therefore I appeal to you to defeat the motion to implement the Stelling recommendations and to adopt a policy statement that the airport should be maintained in good operating condition for the duration of existing leases. At some point before that time the issue will have to be revisited. At that point, perhaps we can see our way clear to close it. I believe that a decision to expand the city airport and to accommodate more, larger and noisier aircraft would be regarded by a large majority of your constituents as foolish. They will ask themselves why such a decision was taken. The answer would seem to be that special interests again trumped the interests of the broader community. Please don't make this mistake. Sincerely, FIMI 501 4"Avenue East Kalilspell Theresa White From: Steve Stucky [emailme@gobluestreak.com] Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 6:13 AM To: Theresa White Subject: Local Airport To shutdown a valuable city asset for a small vocal opposition is silly. Airports are big economic engines in a rural state like Montana. Businesses count on visitors in Montana. Airports are another way to bring them there. On a not -to -relevant note: Individuals freely choose to move and live next to an airport. Then they decide they don't like the noise. So, they invent a cute cuddly name and throw up opposition. Please... Theresa White From: Brian [bkcarroll@mt.net] Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 4:25 PM To: Theresa White Subject: Kalispell city airport B-II upgrade Mayor Fisher and Kalispell City Council, I am writing you to voice my support for the planned B-II upgrade that is the current hot button issue for Kalispell. In full disclosure, I do not live in Kalispell city limits. My wife and I are however Flathead county taxpayers, owning property in Marion and 93acres, 6 miles west of town. We fly into Kalispell to pick up groceries and visit family. I'm not a rich out of stater, I graduated from FHS in 1979. My wife and her family have been in the Flathead Valley for over 120yrs. I am a mechanic and choose airplanes over new cars or boating or cable TV. I am also a past Airport Board member for Townsend City/County Airport. Townsend did a similar upgrade roughly 15yrs ago. We had the same worries and complaints as you are dealing with at Kalispell. But I am here to tell you, the noise and increased giant planes hasn't arrived. Yes, we get an occasional LifeFlight King Air 90, a turbo prop twin.....worth it to the patients that need this service. I have also seen a Citation jet land there ... once. Townsend City Airport was Montana Small Airport of the year in 2008. While aviation is slowing at some facilities, Townsend is growing. If they had more hangars we could fill 5 tomorrow. 3 private hangars built since 2002 are valued at a combined $1.5million dollars. The FBO, AirCrafters, had to build another hangar this year and is looking to hire more help as he can barely keep up with the demand. People are willing to spend money at a facility that they know wants them there and assures theirs that the airport will still be viable in 20 years. The Townsend Festival of Flight is in its 71h or 8th year, held on the 41h of July each year. Last year they had 60 planes come in for the breakfast and fed over 280 people of which more than half were local town folks. 50 kids got free airplanes rides sponsored by the EAA Young Eagles program. This is in a town of 2200. There are only 11 aircraft based at Townsend, but have a very active aviation group and a city that loves them. Currently I am informed that the runway will be getting a $140,000 resealing and striping but due to FAA AIP money it will only cost the County $14,000. Do not fear the FAA AIP grant assurances. Oh before I forget, Townsend still has HUD funding also. I'm betting the Kalispell Chamber of Commerce spends a fair amount of money trying to get visitors and business to come to Kalispell. So in this regard, build it and they will come might be appropriate. People already like Kalispell, give them a nicer safer airport to visit. The ability to walk from your plane to shops or motels is huge with traveling pilots. A little word of mouth around the pilot circles could mean a boom in the neighborhood from the motels, restaurants, car dealerships and even that little quilt store for the wife to visit while I get the plane ready. Every dollar spent locally means approximately $1.70 impact to the local economy. I live 4 hrs away, but flew to Kalispell to car shop. Ask the Toyota dealer if I should come back or shop elsewhere. Jobs, Jobs, Jobs I read the Daily Interlake online almost daily. I see the comments from the Quiet Skies group and the others. Looks to me like things get twisted out of proportion. Chinook helicopters and jets while possible I suppose, I think it's a real stretch of the imagination. I see the poll on the front page shows that people are concerned and support the upgrade. It also shows that currently <50 people want it closed or moved. To shutdown a valuable city asset for a small vocal opposition is silly. Airports are big economic engines in a rural state like Montana. Businesses count on visitors in Montana. Airports are another way to bring them here. I would like you to also think of the average student pilot. 1. Does that young person find that dream looking through the fence at LAX or eating lunch at the picnic table at S27? 2. Does the 40yr old working man finally reach for his dream by dropping his job and family to attend Emery - Riddle? or go 4 blocks during lunch to fly with his local Certified Flight Instructor in a C-150?3. How about after you get licensed... would a pilot rather bring their family to a town that embraces them like S27, where they can get a free tiedown for a few hours and walk to a cafe or motel maybe grab some $5/gal fuel OR would they prefer to land at JFK with its $8.50/gal fuel, $25 landing, $75 parking and $30 facility fee ... oh wait you haven't even tried to leave for a snack yet, sorry no courtesy car but they will call you a $40 cab. If all we want is to be drones in life, with no adventure or dreams, no jobs, then why bother even getting out of bed in the morning. Brian Carroll, Townsend, MT Theresa White From: Scott Davis [maxwellsnortsnort@live.com] Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 9:51 AM Subject: LETTERS TO COUNCIL MEMBERS!!!!!!!!! Dear Quiet Skies Members and all who are Interested, Mayor, City Council Members, D.I.L. Flathead Beacon 05-13-2012 It has been brought to my attention that all the letters that Quiet Skies Members and NonMembers and residents of Kalispell have sent in opposing of the expansion of the airport, may not all have been sent on to the Council Members mail box over the last few years. Yes, you read that right. I was asked to have all the members and all who have sent letters in opposing of the FAA funded expansion of the Kalispell City airport to please re -send your letters with your name and address on it. I know you all have no doubt deleted them or they are buried deep. It's terrible that this has occurred. It's not right! There is going to be an investigation into this matter I'm sure. I hope it wasn't malice toward Quiet Skies or the people of Kalispell. There is just someone saying "Look the only letters we are getting is from Scott Davis of Quiet Skies, he is the only one sending in letters." So I'm thinking only Quiet Skies letters were forwarded, not the people who wrote them." Sounds like they are grasping at straws to me. But some people will do all most anything to get there way. So, if you can resend or send new letters, it would show them that there are letters from the people them self and they are not all coming from Quiet Skies (Scott Davis). I know a lot of you sent them to me to pass on to the Council, and I did. But I think they are just trying to make it out it's just me doing a letter campaign or something. I think the council should ask the Daily Inter Lake to forward all there letters send to them opposing this expansion, PUBLISHED AND NOT PUBLISHED over the last five years. Flathead Beacon as well has many many letters from folks that don't want expansion. I invite any councilmember to view 680 plus correspondences with and from members and nonmembers and all I have on my computer. Please send what you have to countilmembers@kalist�ell�eorn OR funk kalis elLeom Quiet Skies even asks the Daily Inter Lake and Flathead Beacon to forward all there letter that they have received in opposing the Kalispell Airport Expansion. Let's play fair! ! ! ! ! Scott Davis QUIET SKIES 406-752-1523 Theresa White From: rick thompson [thompson90706@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 10:50 AM To: Theresa White Subject: Fw: City Airport, leave it as is when I sent this letter on May 7 I received a reply, "not in Office" ----- Subject: City Airport, leave it as is Mayor Fischer, and Fellow Council Members: We are residents of Ward 4 and are STRONGLY AGAISNT the airport expansion. We have no problem with AS IS city airport. Although if the as is approch is not feasible we would support the airport being moved or closed down. We feel the expansion would serve few of the citzens of Kalispell and be for an elite group. As for using the Airport expansion fund we are strongly against it. Less big goverment involvment in any community is for the better of all. Thank -you for your service and we appreciate your time in this matter of great importance to all. Rick & Kathy Thompson 284 Buttercup Loop Kalispell, MT 59901 Theresa White From: Bill Cox [billcox3@bresnan.net] Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 3:56 PM To: Theresa White; Judi Funk Subject: Compromise on City Airport I first sent this letter last Friday, May 11. I gather from the response that did not go through. I'm trying again. Dear Mayor Fisher and Kalispell City Council Members: At the May 7 council meeting both proponents and opponents of expanding the city airport presented interesting and forceful arguments. If I were a debate judge, I would give the proponents the edge, as they have access to more facts and figures and presented their views passionately. I hope, however, that you will not buy us a large slice of pie in the sky. As an example, Mr. Gross, who spoke for his aircraft maintenance business, stated that he has 33 highly paid employees in Missoula but only one in Kalispell, because he "has no airport in Kalispell." The implication was that, if the expansion is carried out, his 15 employees from the Flathead Valley would be working here instead. That is a very dubious proposition. The Missoula airport is larger than Glacier Park International, and city airport will never be remotely comparable to it. The proposed airport expansion would, of course, create some temporary construction jobs (emphasis on temporary). By the time it could occur, however, the valley and the country probably will have returned to full employment. The aversion of flyers at city airport to flying out of GPI seems to be based on the better selection of restaurants near their airport and the need of some to hire transportation from GPI. These issues do not justify major taxpayer expense. They also like having their own tax -financed playpen instead of having to deal with GPI's management. Nevertheless general aviation shares airports all over the country with airlines and cargo operations . The comparison to public facilities for other subsets of city residents also is frivolous. The skateboard park requires perhaps one one -thousandth the land and investment of the airport and serves more people in a day than the airport does in a week. The 70-year-old airport proponent who stated that he had not used the public schools lately really brought that issue into focus. Public education is a fundamental municipal function critical to our culture and our economy, and most families use those facilities as children and as parents. A publicly financed airport for a handful of well-to-do flyers does not have the same priority. The issues posed by businesses now located at city airport must be taken more seriously. Even though I personally prefer to shut the airport down for safety and noise reasons, I have concluded that, to treat business owners and employees fairly, the best resolution of this controversy is to maintain the city airport as it is. This decision would protect their interests without saddling the city with a larger more expensive airport in a poor location with its substantial disadvantages for residents of the city. Therefore I appeal to you to defeat the motion to implement the Stelling recommendations and to adopt a policy statement that the airport should be maintained in good operating condition for the duration of existing leases. At some point before that time the issue will have to be revisited. I believe that a decision to expand the city airport and to accommodate more, larger and noisier aircraft would be regarded by a large majority of your constituents as foolish. They will ask themselves why such a decision was taken. The only answer would seem to be that special interests again trumped the interests of the broader community. Please don't make this mistake. Sincerely, William A. Cox 501 4"' Avenue East Kalilspell Theresa White Fnmnn: Scott Davis [naxvxe|onortnnork@|ive.onm] Sent: Sunday, May 13.2012Q:U4PM Let's not have this happen toKalispell and our Flathead Va|lev!/!!! Date: Sun, 13 May2O12 19:11:14'0400 Subject: SedonaArizona Closetheairportcum From: /o: airport groups need to stick together and share our work so we can defeat the aviation industry. The Congress has a very large General Aviation Caucus, our Congressman Paul Gosar covered up his meeting here and denied the press coverage. I am attaching a draft copy of of the Treaty outline being brought up at the UN Summit next month. I am also attaching a news article and photo of our airport and info on lead toxicity. I think it would behoove you to get a website written and online. Focus on the pollution and lead not just noise. Take a look at our website. I should be able to get you a template up and running and you can fill in the content yourself by logging in using wordpress. Closethekalispellairport.com? You should get a hair test done right away to see how much heavy metal poisoning you have. There are ways to slowly remove lead and other metals. I have a petition that I wrote up on change.org, it is linked to my website. That would be helpful as a draft for your petition. Please visit our website and sign our petition and leave your comments. This is a national aviation problem, not just a local problem. I have the incumbent congress woman coming to our home on June 1st to discuss the issue. We are making a video this week to document our situation. I know our problems are worst than yours and we are an example of what will happen to Kalispell if it is allowed to grow. New micro jets are coming this will make the problem even worse. All children living near the airport have lead poisoning. There is no safe amount of lead. I think sharing our website with the local people is a good idea so they can see what jets will do to your town. park and we have had up to 80,000 flights per year. Planes sight see over our homes, helicopters f ly over our rooftops all day long and over our high school. We have people dying at young ages from rare forms of cancer. The geology here makes our situation even worse than it otherwise would be. Yours truly, Kristin Monday, President CTAC- Close the Airport Committee www.closetheairport.com Home: '528-554-4573 Cell: 928-282-9222 Theresa `,`I e From: Scott Davis [maxwellsnortsnort@live.com] Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 9:18 PM Subject: QUIET SKIES Dear Quiet Skies member and all who are Interested, check this Mission statement out Close the Airport Committee (CTAC) exists to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of Sedona Citizens and their property. We are committed to bringing political awareness and action together to solve the growing national aviation problem of small community airports, which are ever expanding into busy airports and jetports inside neighborhoods and the resultant negative impacts and cost to human life and property values. CTAC is working to bring together attorneys, doctors, environmental groups, government agencies, NGO's, politicians and citizens to find and implement solutions to create a safe, sustainable aviation industry that benefits all citizens and future generations using Sedona, Arizona as a model city. We would like to see a national change in policy and law making that would protect the general public from the negative impacts of noise and air pollution, and protect life, property values and peaceful enjoyment. 1. Implement laws and work aggressively to relocate small general aviation airports away from towns. 2. Implement stricter laws on helicopter flights and stop helicopter stalking of individuals. 3. Give local communities legal rights to restrict their airspace over homes, schools, churches and park lands so aircraft are kept at a minimum altitude to mitigate noise and pollution. 4. Eliminate leaded AV gas. The health of 330 million people and the environment should have precedent over the general aviation enjoyment of 34,000 pilots. The damage caused by leaded AV gas is too great to ignore and continue. Scott Davis QUIET SKIES 752-1523 Theresa White From: Scott Davis [naxwalsnortsnorb@km.com] Sent Sunday, May 13.2012A:20PM Subject: QUIET SKIES We do not need this kind of problem in kalispell, "NO FAA FUNDING TO EXPAND THE CITY AIRPORT" SCJTT DAVIS QUIET SKIES 752-1S23 Theresa White From: Scott Davis [maxwellsnortsnort@live.com] Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 10:36 PM Subject: quiet skies avgas Dear Quiet Skies members and all who are Interested, It's not only me, that's complainting or worried about the health of my town and the children that live in it!!!! Last Wednesday, the environmental advocacy group Friends of the Earth filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, challenging the agency's failure to regulate lead emissions from aircraft that burn so-called avgas, which now accounts for approximately half of the country's airborne lead. Nearly 200,000 airplanes and helicopters in the U.S. continue to fly on fuel containing lead, despite the toxic metal's known health risks to the children living, playing and breathing below. "Everyone thinks that since lead has been removed from automobile gasoline, even NASCAR, the problem is gone. But aviation gasoline is still a big problem," said Marcie Keever, legal director for Friends of the Earth. "We are particularly concerned about the impact of lead on the health of children." After Friends of the Earth discovered in 2003 that avgas had "basically been ignored in all attempts to get lead out of fuel," said Keever, the group sent a letter to the EPA. They followed that with a petition, then a notice of intent to sue and now a lawsuit. The EPA told The Huffington Post that they would evaluate the suit and respond accordingly. The agency also noted that, in April 2010, they responded to the original Friends of the Earth petition with an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR). They are currently collecting relevant data that, the EPA said, "is necessary before determining next steps." More than 3 million children attend school in close proximity to the some 20,000 airports where avgas may be used. In general, the airplanes that fill up on this fuel run on piston engines, much like cars, and tend to be smaller and older machines than today's commercial airliners or military jets. In 2010, the EPA identified 16 regions in the United States that fail to meet clean air standards for lead. Each one of these regions either contains or is next to an airport that uses leaded avgas. A study out of Duke University in 2011 found that the closer a child lived to a North Carolina airport with avgas, the more lead was likely flowing through that child's blood. There is no safe level of lead exposure, according to the EPA. Even in small doses, inhaling or ingesting the metal could damage a child's brain and lead to learning disabilities and decreased intelligence. "Brain development is delicate in terms of its timing. Once that's been disturbed, it's not clear that a child can recover from it," said David Bellinger, a professor of neurology at Children's Hospital Boston. "Preventing exposure is the best strategy." What's more, the metal doesn't dissipate in the environment. Lead spewing from a plane may eventually settle onto a ball field, a swimming hole or a family's vegetable garden. "We know more about lead than any other environmental chemical, yet we just keep learning that both the range of bad things it does and the levels at which it does those bad things keeps surprising us," added Bellinger. Benet Wilson, spokesperson for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association said the group is working with the EPA and the Federal Aviation Administration to transition to an unleaded avgas. "The issue is that we have a lot of aircraft out there that can only use this particular fuel," she said. "People are still flying planes that date back to 1930s and 1940s." Overall, about 70 percent of these airplanes could use unleaded fuel safely. However, the other 30 percent of the fleet currently do need the leaded gasoline in order to operate, according to Jens Hennig, vice president of operations at the General Aviation Manufacturers Association. He added that this smaller proportion of planes consumes 70 percent of avgas. Even for the planes that could use an unleaded fuel, making an unleaded alternative available is not simple. General aviation airports tend to house two fuel tanks: one with jet fuel for turbine -powered planes, and another with avgas. "Suddenly introducing a third flavor of fuel would add significantly to the complexity for fuel service providers," Hennig said. But some aviation groups, including the Aviation Fuel Club, are working to make such an alternative fuel available at airports around the country in an effort to limit this potential source of lead exposure for airport workers, airplane pilots and passengers, along with everyone else in the surrounding community, including children. Of course, many children in the U.S. continue to be exposed to lead via paint and water pipes, among other sources. "Lead keeps popping up in unexpected places, which is why it's such a persistent problem," said Bellinger. "You can make a decision in Washington to take lead out of gas or paint, but there are a lot of other pathways that we need to pay attention to in order to address the problem completely." Theresa White From: Scott Davis [maxwellsnortsnort@live.com] Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 10:21 PM Subject: QUIET SKIES AVGAS WARNING According to the EPA inventories,gasoline is the largestsingle source of airborne Pb emissions in the United All cities with airports have a cloud of lead hanging over them; poisoning the people, animals and environment below. Most people are unaware of this because lead was removed from automobile exhaust but aviation gasoline is still leaded. As airports with PISTON -ENGINE AIRCRAFT USING LEADED AVIATION GASOLINE get busier like Kalispell, Montana, the airport becomes an ever increasing threat to the health of the people, animals and environment permanently. There is no safe amount of lead, Recent scientific studies on lead show that adverse health effects are occurring at lower levels of exposure to lead than previously thought. At low levels of exposure to lead, the main health effect observed the nervous system; specifically, exposure to lead may have subtle effects on the intellectual development of infants and children. Infants and toddlers are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of lead because they are undergoing a period of rapid development; furthermore, their growing bodies absorb lead more easily and excrete lead less efficiently than adults. Once lead enters the body it interferes with normal cell function and physiological processes. Some of the physiological effects of lead include harm done to the peripheral and central nervous system (PNS, CNS), blood cells, metabolism of vitamin D and calcium, and reproductive toxicity. The nervous system seems to be the most sensitive to lead poisoning. Hopefully the lead can be removed to prevent permanent damage but lead stores in the bones and is mistaken by the body as calcium, it causes kidney damage, learning disabilities and life long problems. To be in this situation at age four is just plain wrong! Many parents who do not know to test for lead or can't afford the test or the treatment. We are warned about buying a home with lead paint but no one is warning the public if we expand our city airport for larger and more aircraft! The general health risks associated with lead are well documented. Is the convenience of a few pilots in small planes worth poisoning everyone else? To even have to argue about this shows the extreme arrogance and selfishness of the people who are fighting to keep "their airport"; I call the aircraft pilots, "cruel and inhumane." Our health and our right to peaceful enjoyment of our property means absolutely nothing to most pilots. Instead they fight and belittle the real suffering of entire communities to keep poisoning people. Kalispell is too small and fragile of an area to sustain more aircraft taking off, landing and sightseeing continuously at low altitudes inside our town and adjoining forest. People moved to or live in Kalispell and have families here because they believe Kalispell is a safe, rural area with no industry. People should be notified that they are in fact receiving doses of lead from the kalispell city airport in the small area we live and breathe in. We pay a higher cost of living here for the privilege of being here. Those living underneath flight paths also face risks associated with higher aircraft emissions and potential accidents caused by poorly performing aircraft. Under Section 231 of the Clean Air Act ("CAA"), the EPA has the authority to regulate aircraft emissions. In October, 2006 the environmental group Friends of the Earth ("FOE") filed a "Petition for Rulemaking Seeking the Regulation of Lead Emissions from General Aviation Aircraft Under § 231 of the Clean Air Act." In response to that petition, the EPA issued the ANPR on April 28, 2010. 75 Fed. Reg. 22440. While the EPA has yet to promulgate lead emissions standards specific to aircraft engines, lead emissions are already subject to extensive regulation under the CAA. Local counties and towns have the right to pass Clean Air Act Ordinances. The EPA recently strengthened the NAAQS for lead by a factor of ten. 73 Fed. Reg. 66964 (Nov. 12, 2008). The new lead NAAQS are the result of a four-year effort during which the EPA conducted extensive analysis of the human health and ecological risks associated with lead, including "full-scale human exposure and health risk assessments." 73 Fed. Reg. 66966-68. As required by the CAA, the resulting NAAQS were set without regard to costs and at a level that is protective of human health, including sensitive groups, "with an adequate margin of safety." CAA § 109(b); 42 U.S.C.A. § 7409(b). In promulgating the new NAAQS, the EPA discussed this requirement at length and ultimately concluded that the new lead NAAQS "standard of 0.15 lag/m3 ... is requisite to protect public health, including the health of sensitive groups, with an adequate margin of safety." In the ANPR, the EPA discusses the health and welfare effects of lead in the context of the 2008 lead NAAQS. 75 Fed. Reg. 22447-52. These health and welfare effects are well documented. With its comprehensive and detailed knowledge of these effects derived from nearly forty years of experience with regulating lead emissions, the EPA designed the 2008 lead NAAQS to be protective of human health "with an adequate margin of safety," as mandated by the CAA. 73 Fed. Reg. 67006; CAA § 109(b); 42 U.S.C.A. § 7409(b). 1 EPA, Air Quality Trends, available at http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/agtrends.html The choice is ours, do you want to live in a green, model community or a polluted city where people are sick and dying? What is Sedona about? Noise and pollution like every other city in the world or is Sedona a special place we are privileged to call home and should be cared for accordingly. When we reach the 279,000 air events per year that Mac McCall wants, will anyone be able to live here or breath with out getting sick and dying from cancer? Nearly 200,,000 airplanes and helicoptersin the U.S. continue fly on fuel containing lead, despite the toxic eal's known health risks to the children living, playing an breathing elo ® There is no safe level of lead exposure,, according tote EPA. Even in small doses,, inhaling r ingesting the metal could a a e a child's rain and lead to learning isabilities and decreasedintelligence. is more,, the metaldoesn't dissipate in the environment. Lead spewing fr a plane may eventually settle n a ball field,, swimming ho1 or a family's vegetable gar en.. http://www.huffin tonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/03/12/lead-emissions-children-aviation-fuel n 1338131.html http://sd28.senate.ca.gov/news/2012-03-21-healthycaI-small-planes-leave-trail-lead SCOTT DAVIS QUIET SKIES 752-1523 To the City of Kalispell; RCVD 5/14%2012 Albert Einstein said, "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them". The City hasn't done much to manage or improve Kalispell City Airport over the last 30 years. The runway and taxiways have had minimal maintenance, and there has not been any navigation, communication or safety upgrades during that time. Pilots using Kalispell City Airport have had to endure rock chips, prop damage, landing gear and strut damage, and a host of other inconveniences because this airport has been lacking in the care necessary to keep it safe and worry free. I can remember one business leader having his prop ruined. He trained at City Airport, got his pilot's license, and proudly arrived one day, 30 years ago, with his brand-new airplane. It seems like it wasn't 15 minutes before the aircraft found a gopher hole, and his $30,000 prop hit the ground. I remember the gentleman's displeasure; he was quite vocal that the airport should've never had gopher holes where airplanes operate. I remember someone from the city told him the airport was there for him to use at his own risk. Well, the man disappeared forever from City Airport. I personally have lost props at City Airport. My solution was to try minimizing operating propeller driven aircraft at City and move to helicopters. But now, even helicopter movement on the airport seems to be subject to some citizen criticism. Helicopter criticism stems mostly from noise. Most pilots do their best to fly neighborly, in a way that reduces a visual or audible imprint on the surface. To me, the noise issue is probably the least problematic, albeit certainly can be argued if you live near the airport you're going to hear aircraft. That fact should be expected, however there are many more noises in the community that are louder and more obnoxious than aircraft. Import cars with loud mufflers, Harley- Davidson's and lawn mowers come to mind, specifically. We do nothing to mitigate those. I place helicopters in the same category as emergency vehicles. When ambulances, fire trucks and law -enforcement vehicles fly through town with their sirens wailing, most people reckon they're going somewhere for the common good, but we can all acknowledge that they are part of the pulse of living in the city. There is a small faction calling for the elimination of helicopter training at City Airport. Many of our best helicopter pilots in the State of Montana, for emergency medical services, law enforcement and public service use have trained at Kalispell City Airport. Training right here in our community, with close proximity to high -altitude, in all our crazy weather, and rugged terrain, these pilots serve the needs of our most vulnerable citizens who get lost or injured in this vast wilderness area we call home. I don't know about you, but I certainly would rather have my rescue pilot familiar with the confined areas and rugged mountain peaks and instantly changing weather at the controls rather than a pilot trained in Florida. I'm not sure whether the City Council or it's airport board has the gumption and the time to manage this airport from square one. The FAA already provides rules, regulations and guidelines that will make any airport using them a safer and better -managed facility. Can we expect the City Council will create an entire handbook for ground operations, aircraft movement, hours of operation, certifying the types of aircraft allowed to use the airport, as well as 100 things we haven't thought of yet that may come up? Will citizens or pilots have to appear before the City Council or the airport board in order to get permission to use the airport, or for permission to close the airport because of an outdoor wedding at a local residence near the airport? As the newest member of the airport board, I am asking you for the same thing I asked at every meeting I've attended for the last 30 years: CLARITY. If the Council votes to accept FAA funding, I can find comfort with that choice and with the clarity contained in the rules and regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration. I fly with them everyday. I have no problem volunteering my time carrying out the duties under those rules and regulations. However, should the city decide with the "status quo", and leave the airport "as is", I would have a hard time imagining how much time it would take to create a regulatory and enforcement arm of city government. This would take countless hours of volunteer board time, and distract the council from running the city just to begin to provide what the FAA rules do already. If past experience is indicative of future performance, it certainly could be argued that nothing positive will come from a "status quo" decision. I believe we can do as our neighboring airports in Ronan and Polson have done in managing the same issues. As representatives of both airports testified before the council last week, the taking of FAA funds and lengthening their runway by 600 feet did not attract a lot of large and noisy aircraft to their community. On the contrary, more members of the Polson and Ronan communities have invested in small aircraft, built hangars, and used the airport to further their businesses. Not to mention the increased use for public safety and law enforcement. The fact that the FAA is willing to kick in 16 million dollars for this project should be a fair indicator just how important infrastructure like this is to the Fed as national policy. Really, the only catch is you have to use the airport as an "airport". By even considering that you would turn down FAA money and Ietting it go somewhere else, "just to send a message" to the world is not logical. Are you willing to lose the needed local jobs, and ultimately lose an important asset hinging on "just on principle"? Another airport would certainly use those funds despite our city "sending the message" with this one instance. You could even argue any future use of earmarks for other purposes after refusing the FAA funding by the City would simply be hypocrisy. How could you take highway, health and human services, or any other Federal funds after rejecting this project based on a nebulous 'Tea Party' principle? Refusing this opportunity will just end up costing the local community in the long run. That is why I urge you to give favorable consideration to excepting FAA funds, improving the airport with those funds, use the green field, open and clear space south of the existing airport, and allow the airport board to mitigate the noise, traffic, and nuisance issues to the benefit of the citizens in Kalispell. Frederick Weber Kalispell Theresa White From: Kenneth Edwards [kelefishing099rnsn.com] Seat: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 6:45 AM To: Theresa White Subject: Airport Dear Sirs: On the Airport, it seems we have been working on the Airport for the last 12 years and probably longer. Working on that we have never fully funded the updating of the Airport because of other priorities the city has had. For the best use of our money it seems that roads, parks, Fire Department, Police Department all have bigger priorities. So let's stop funding the airport! Ken Edwards 121 Deer Trail RD Kalispell Judi Funk From: Theresa White Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 9:09 AM To: Judi Funk Subject: FW: Kalispell City Airport Letter of Support From: Dave Boyd [mailto:davidboyd(&hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 8:20 PM To: Theresa White Subject: Kalispell City Airport Letter of Support Kalispell City Council Members, My name is David Boyd, I reside in Three Forks, MT. I am a professional pilot, a captain on an intercontinental -class business jet called a Falcon 7X, and I am also the airport manager for the Three Forks Airport (9S5). I am writing today to provide some prospective about some of the issues facing your Kalispell City Airport, as some of them are the same issues we face here in Three Forks. As you know, small airports face the challenging task of providing services and facilities that often times may not, at first glance, seem cost effective or financially prudent. I know that at times it must seem like the airport is a black hole that the city is pouring money into with virtually no return on its investment. I know our commissioners have felt that way in the past. I can tell you that they no longer do. Here are a few reasons as to why our commissioners now view the Three Forks Airport as a growing, vibrant community asset. 1. We have finally(!) reached the point with our airport that we are able to provide a good, viable option to the pilots of Gallatin County, both local and transient. By upgrading our facilities to include a newly surfaced 5100' x 60' lighted runway, a great pilot shelter, self serve fuel and an FBO that provides courtesy cars and a variety of other services, we were able to attract a contingency of the pilot population that has grown tiresome of Bozeman's much busier airspace that includes airline traffic, corporate jet traffic, as well as helicopter and flight school operations. Consequently, in spite of the difficult economic times, we have 14 new hangar bays opening at our airport, all being built by private individuals using local builders and craftsmen. Without exception, the growth that we are seeing is being driven by pilots of small, piston powered general aviation types of aircraft. That is the demographic our airport was set up for, and to whom we cater. Nearly none of the facilities and services I've listed above would be available were it not for our decision years ago to opt into the NPIAS (National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems) program offered by the FAA. The grant money that is available to smaller airports like ours (and yours) provides the means to make them into true assets for the communities they serve. Relying solely on our county budget simply does not offer the financial depth it requires to complete the larger projects these small airports need in order to remain viable. We recently put in an animal control fence around the entire perimeter of the airport in an effort to control the large whitetail deer population we have due to our proximity to 3 rivers. At a cost of $21 per linear foot, the total project costs were nearly $700,000! That kind of funding is simply not an option at the county level, but by being able to apply for, and receive an AIP grant from the FAA, 95% of the project costs were covered. The State of Montana pitched in 2.5% and Gallatin County was only responsible for the remaining 2.5% of those costs, a much more reasonable figure for our commissioners to approve. We also just recently used an AIP grant to acquire a new snow plow for our airport. The total cost for the equipment was in the $165,000 range. Again, way out of our budget were we to go out and try to simply buy it ourselves. Again the county's contribution to the purchase price was 2.5% of the total purchase price. I'm sure you can see what a great option these AIP grants are for us. They would not be possible if we were not a NPIAS airport. 2. Because of the great reputation the Three Forks Airport has and because of the facilities and services we are able to offer, we have been able to host events at our airport that attract people from literally all over the country, bringing their out-of-state dollars with them. Events such as our 2nd annual Big Sky Air Race. We were one of only 20 airports around the country selected to host this recreational air racing league, and from what we were told by those who organized the event last year, the general consensus among those who participated is that this was by far the most scenic and enjoyable of all the stops on their circuit. I can also add that many of those same participants opted to stay after the race was over to visit Yellowstone, as well as other local attractions. They stayed in our hotels, ate at our restaurants, bought our gas, and shopped in our stores. bast year's event, the first of what we hope will be many more, injected over $20,000 into our local economy, all from a 1 day event! We also host the Montana Antique Aircraft Association's annual fly -in, and have been doing so for 34 years now, making us the longest running host for an event like this in the state of Montana. We look forward to 150+ aircraft from all over the Pacific Northwest flying into our airport and spending the week with us. I can tell you that during this week, the 3 hotels we have in town are booked solid. That's in addition to the large group of pilots that opt to sleep in tents under the wings of their aircraft. 3. Because of our proximity to Gallatin Field (KBZN) we are also a great resource for our local flight schools. MSU has a first class aviation program, with many of their students going on to be professional pilots in a variety of capacities. When training, a newly soloed pilot is often limited to flying within a specified geographic area around their home airport. In many cases, it starts out in the 25 mile range. We are the only airport that fits the criteria for student pilots when that mileage limit applies to them. Also, the students appreciate being able to come out to our airport for the one of the reasons I stated above ... it's a quiet venue that allows them to concentrate on learning to fly instead of being distracted by having to worry about multiple large, turbine powered aircraft crowding them out of the airport traffic pattern. I feel it would be prudent to mention that none of the improvements we've made at our airport were done with the intent of expanding the airport to a point where it could handle commercial, freight, and/or corporate types of aircraft. Our airport will never be in a position to accept those kinds of aircraft. Even at the maximum build out for our runway (5500' x 75'), it is still too small a runway for most of those types of aircraft. Additionally, we simply don't have, nor will we ever have, the facilities or services those types of aircraft require ranging from: jet fuel, on -field emergency services, rental cars, large hangar facilities, maintenance, instrument approaches, etc. I can tell you as a professional pilot, that even if my boss were to approach me about landing at Three Forks, I would not consider it an option. Gallatin Field is only 20 miles away, and has all of the services I just listed. I can also tell you that we have never, not even once, had a jet land at our airport in the 7+ years I've been the manager of the Three Forks Airport. In conclusion, I know I've prattled on about what a great airport Three Forks has, and that is because we've worked very hard to get to where we are, and are proud of what an asset to the community our airport has become. That was not always the case for us. I would hope that you would look to the future of your community and see that the Kalispell City airport could be viewed in the same light as our airport is now, instead of a relic of an era long gone that needs to be scuttled and turned into more urban sprawl. There are no magic formulas to start this process; many small airports can make this transformation. There are programs and grants available to you as a county to make the necessary enhancements to your airport so that pilots flying into the Flathead Valley will see it as a great alternative to using Glacier Park International without creating a huge financial burden for the county taxpayers. Kalispell City Airport has the potential to help your community by providing an additional economic base as well as another gateway to those who have come to see for themselves why the Kalispell area is such a great place to visit and live. Regards, David Boyd Three Forks Pogreba Field Airport Manager Mayor Fisher and City Council; I would like to direct your attention to two articles in the New York Times that serve as a cautionary tale about over -reliance on promises made in regard to FAA funding. The first article, "Storm Gathers Over Resort Town Airport" appeared March 29, 2002. The similarities with articles running in our local papers regarding the proposed city airport are uncan. E nyspecially relevant are the claim of proponents in favor of accepting $30 million from the FAA for the Mammoth Lakes' city airport expansion about the economic boo he project will have for the community Also germane are the assurances of FAA officials in regard to the availabil1 $30 million for the project. Fast forward ten years to April 13, 2012 for an up -date on this story in the NYT article, "M�mmoth Lakes, CA Faces Bankruptcy". The story describes how the city is looking at declaring bankruptcy because nothing about that project turned out the way proponents of the project presente it to t e community ten years earlier. Today the city of Mammoth Lakes cannot pay a $43 million legal judgment in a development dispute that are rooted in FAA funding that failed to come through as promised as well as serious restrictions on the use of the limited FAA funds that did come through. Sadly, the city of Mammoth Lakes has been forced to cut its work force from 130 to 70. Moreover, all coming years ave been put on hold indefinitely. One resident is quoted as saying, "I have a couple of young kids, and I'm worried about the schools." Others describe the ill-fated decision to purse the airport expansion as "tragic". Before making your decision in regard to the airport expansion I urge you to make sure you have done the math and weighed the downside of this project. Is it worth, putting so much for so many at risk when the anticipated benefits are so small and accrue to so few? Respectfully, James Loran 29 8t" Street East Kalispell, MT 59901 May 19, 2012 My name is Clarice Marie Gates and I live and own my home at 426 7th. Ave west, Kalispell, MT. My phone is (406) 752-1199. I am a senior. My subject is: What should be done with the City Airport. I was born in Kalispell but lived in Flathead County until I graduated from Columbia Falls High School in 1958. My husband, Lou, and I moved to 426 7th. Ave West, Kalispell, MT address about 20 years ago. Several years ago a friend took me up in his single engine plane stored at the city airport. At that time I wished I could afford the flying lessons and my daily employment schedule would be the same day after day. Over the years, our city airport has given many people a chance to take flying lessons here. I watched all the persons, companies and organizations that testified their pros and con's about our city airport. Number One: I don't like the comparison made about our City Airport with Poison's City Airport and Butte's City Airport. It is like comparing apples and oranges. Neither should the Skate Board Park in Woodland Park and the balls fields near FVCC be brought into this conversation either. Number Two: I was shocked to find out that the manager of our City Airport does not keep daily logs of the flight patterns of everyone using airport. How can an accurate count of usage be made and are the correct fees being collected? Number Three: There is no guarantee that the federal government will actually help pay for the proposed 16 million expansions to upgrade our city airport to B-11 standards and to reimburse the amount of money the city has already spent on this project. At this time Congress has not agreed on how to balance their budget and no one knows which projects will be eliminated. What about cost over runs? Will the people owning property in the city limits be forced to pay more taxes to cover these expenses? We already have a failed Old School Station Industrial Park. And then there is the cost of over runs for our new city hall. Since our Glacier International Airport near by has space to accommodate the 13-11 planes there is no need to upgrade our city airport to 13-11 Standards and Kalispell should not be competing for this business. Number Four: Why should the owners of property in Kalispell be required to pay more property taxes to replace the lost taxes of people who use our city airport and want the proposed expansion and upgrade to 13-11 Standards but choose to live in the county because they can not afford to pay our city property taxes? Can discounts legally be given to people who live in the city and want to use our city airport? Number Five: I am for keeping our City Airport open for smaller planes, doing the maintence needed and making it safer to use. Sincerely -Fours, Clarice Marie Gates