Environmental AssessmentNVOIRITSIULTIMUMA WNIMMOIN
The cost of the EA will depend on what is listed in the Scope of Work (SOW) for
the EA. We have seen EA's that cost $25,000 and we have seen EA's that have
cost $100,000. The more data you request to be assessed, the more the cost
will rise. We had programmed for a simple "upgrade" to the 2002 EA but, it
appears that won't happen. The FAA will have some items they want looked
at, and the City Council may have some additional items they want assessed.
Once the SOW has been determined, we will be able to get a cost estimate.
Example; the KGEZ towers will have to be looked at again and the Council may
want to look at the cost of closing down the airport and moving it to another
location. That might require another full scale Site Selection Study. The FAA
has already funded a Site Selection Study and an EA, they would have to agree
to fund another one again.
The EA is a reimbursable item the FAA will pay for. However, we will need to
fund it first. If the EA comes out with a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI), like the last one, and we move forward on the airport upgrade, the
FAA will pay for 95% of the cost of the EA. If the assessment comes back with
any other determination, and we do not go forward with the upgrade of the
airport, we will bear the full financial burden for the EA and all other studies
and investments we have made so far in this airport.
I all kil 111 L'
The Airport Tax Increment District (TIF) has three major goals it was suppose to
SIMON=
$1,367,500)
M W=-- ffeem M M 0 �O = M-1 M-im M ==@* WiWere W P. men
I I lilirril In l�� I
•111111111E
Developing the •r •: a broad range • tasks from • to
•- to engineering, to • to • of land. • • th
EA is always the first step in this process. Granted, we had an approved EA th
allowed us to move forward with our planning phase. As we were working on
the next • • mitigating the KGEZ tower situation, the EA ran its course.
After three years • no advancement •, the proposed project, the EA become
stale and needs to be upgraded. The KGEZ tower mitigation will again be a
• in the next EA.
There are sufficient funds available in the Airport TIF to take care of this
project.
The FAA has Airport Improvement Program funds available to upgrade,
modernize and build airports. The federal funds come from Congressional
appropriations and from taxes on fuel and commercial travel tickets. Each FAA
Region is allocated a certain amount annually from these funds to be used for
airport development. Receiving these funds at the local level is very
competitive since there are so many airports in need and so little funds to go
around. The FAA plans projects at least five years out.
Once the FAA has approved your Airport Layout Plan, they put you airport in
the system for federal funding under the AIP. It is the airport owner's
steps in the process. Most above ground improvements are eligible for federal
AIP dollars. Underground infrastructures are not eligible for reimbursement.
Those items eligible for reimbursement are reimbursed at the 95% level. The
-emaining 5% is the responsibility of the airport owner. Also, if it is a federal
'troject, the State of Montana Aeronautics Board has grant and loan (1.65%)
money available and will look at paying for half of the 5% that is the
responsibility of the airport owner. So, the cost could be reduced to 2 Y2%.
The full cost of this project at completion is estimated to be $15,223,797.00 of
which the City would be responsible for $956,926.00. Half of that is subject to
additional grants from the Montana State Aeronautics. This is based on the
Capital Improvement Plan for the Kalispell City Airport dated September 9,
2009. But remember, the City has already put over $3,000,000 into this airport
that is reimbursable by the FAA. When reimbursed, the City should be able to
put nearly $1,500,000 back into the airport reserve fund to maintain this
airport throughout its life and therefore having an upgraded asset of the City
that will not be a burden on its taxpayers.
Over the history of the Kalispell City Airport (80 years) there have been several
different formats of leases used. Some of these older leases had special
provisions as trade-offs for work or construction done by clients on the airport.
After studying the Grant Assurances from the FAA, we felt it would be
appropriate to convert all leases to a standard lease format that treated all
leaseholders the same. With the development of the NW corner of the airport,
we now had 12 new sites available for customers to build on. We researched
and designed a more comprehensive land lease for the airport to use.
Investors wanted to build hangars on the airport because they saw
improvements on the airport and the City Council had agreed to move forward
with the redevelopment of the airport. The hangar owners pay personal
property taxes on the improvements on the airport. Two additional things the
investors wanted in the new lease; protection from the airport ever closing;
and terms that banks would accept for financing. The new lease was
developed and given to the City Council for approval. The lease terms are for
20 years with two 5 year options at the discretion of the City. There is an
automatic 3% escalation clause and the necessary insurance requirements.
There is a clause in the lease that protects the investor from loss from a
decision by the City to one day arbitrarily close the airport. The City Council felt
comfortable with the clause because they had already decided to move
forward on the airport planned redevelopment. The FBO lease is a customized
lease because of the special requirements of a Fixed Base Operator. There are
no through -the -fence leases on the airport. These are frowned upon by the
FAA because you have no control over what goes on with private property next
to a public airport, but the private property owner has access to a public
airport. We currently have two through -the -fence operations at the airport
with no agreements in place.
UIM
The first step in the design or redevelopment of an airport is to determine the
current users • the airport. This means that you must •- familiar with the
aircraft types that currently utilize the airport. Throughout the year we make
note of these users and compile a list. It is not necessary for us to list all the
small single engine aircraft and helicopters that use the airport. What is
important is to list the larger single engine aircraft and the twin engine aircraf)
that frequent the airport. Due to their wing spans • approach speeds, these
aircraft may show up as B 11 category aircraft in the FAA regulations. The will
not let us use federal funds to build anything we want. We must justify every
step of the process. Federal funds are very competitive. Like the Highway 93
alternate route had to be justified, so will our airport upgrade have to be
justified. If we can justify it, the FAA will help us fund it. Some B 11 aircraft that
frequent are airport are listed below:
2�M- •t
ROM M- I
Cessna Caravan Pilatus PC-12 Beech Freighter