02-22-16 City Council Work Session MaterialsCITY OF KALISPELL
CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION AGENDA
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2016 - 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
201 FIRST AVENUE EAST
CALL TO ORDER
DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan Update
PUBLIC COMMENT
MAYOR/COUNCIL/CITY MANAGER REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
UPCOMING SCHEDULE
Growth Policy Sub -Committee Work Session — February 23, 2016, at 6:00 p.m. — First Floor
Conference Room
Ward IV Town Hall Meeting — February 24, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. — Council Chambers
Ward III Town Hall Meeting — March 2, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. — Council Chambers
Next Regular Council Meeting — March 7, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. — Council Chambers
Next Council Work Session — March 14, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. — Council Chambers
Reasonable accommodations will be made to enable individuals with disabilities to attend this
meeting. Please notify the City Clerk at 758-7756.
�r yoF h City of Kalispell
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
MONTANA
TO: Mayor Johnson and Kalispell City Council
FROM: Doug Russell, City Manager
DATE: February 22, 2016
SUBJECT: South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan Update review
In 1996, The South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan was developed and contained plans for
improvements at, and around, the Kalispell City airport. This plan outlined goals of the urban
renewal efforts and identified potential funding mechanisms, including the existing Tax
Increment District, which has been established to help fund projects in the Urban Renewal Plan
and extends until approximately 2020. With the 1996 plan at completion or impasse based on
the public vote for expansion of the airport, the city hired CTA to produce an update to the plan
to define a long tern vision for the area and options for the airport.
The attached plan update identifies potential projects for urban renewal and five scenarios to
consider for the airport. At the work session, CTA will present an overview of the update and
answer questions from council.
www.kalispell.com
�L
- r nRen ewaI_ -r _n
r - pw e - ` 1,
nm
Ono
r F � r'. ' `i ~":^ �.., ;4 �� f �+ f � � .may �� � �--r�. �• -
m
PIONEERING Iviluda '�°
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................1
APlan and a Vision................................................................................................1
Description of District Boundaries..............................................................1
Urban Renewal District...........................................................................................1
Tax Increment Financing District(TIFD)....................................................................1
Historyof the Airport..........................................................................................4
History of Prior Planning Efforts....................................................................4
1996 Airport Layout plan (ALP)...............................................................................5
1996 Kalispell City Airport/Athletic Complex Redevelopment Plan ............................5
1999 Phase I Master Plan Airport Feasibility Study...................................................5
2012 Final Master Plan........................................................................................... 5
II. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
....................................7
Meetingsand Workshops.................................................................................7
2015 Project Kick Off..............................................................................................
7
Public Outreach Process..........................................................................................
7
Summary of Public Outreach from the 2012............................................................7
ProjectWebsite......................................................................................................
8
Newsand Media.....................................................................................................8
PublicOpen Forums................................................................................................9
Comment Boards and Surveys......................................................................9
Emerging Trends and Themes.......................................................................11
Summary....................................................................................................................12
ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS......................................................................15
ExecutiveSummary.............................................................................................15
Introduction.............................................................................................................16
ExistingConditions.............................................................................................17
PriorAirport Studies...............................................................................................17
Airport and Airfield Configuration...........................................................................17
AirportRole...........................................................................................................17
OtherArea Airports.................................................................................................18
Aviation Activity at the Airport................................................................................18
TrafficPatterns.......................................................................................................19
AirportConstraints.................................................................................................19
AirportAlternatives.............................................................................................24
Introduction..........................................................................................................24
Alternative 1
— Keep Airport As-Is...........................................................................26
Alternative 2
— Close the Airport.............................................................................30
Alternative 3
— FAA Compliant Airport in Current Alignment....................................34
Alternative 4
— Incorporation into an Airport Authority...........................................36
Alternative 5
— Privatize the Airport........................................................................37
Summary —
Comparison of Alternatives.................................................38
Endnotes Assumptions and Sources.........................................................43
IV. DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND STRATEGIES..45
LandUse Strategies............................................................................................45
Development Guidelines.................................................................................46
Improvement Projects and Opportunity Sites....................................48
Airport Redevelopment Opportunity.......................................................62
Tax Increment Financing...................................................................................66
Tax Increment Financing Projects.............................................................................66
Minimizing Hazards to Navigation...........................................................................66
Increasing Economic Development Opportunities .........................67
FinancingMethods..............................................................................................68
Tax Increment Financing.........................................................................................68
Industrial Development Bonds.................................................................................68
General Obligation Bonds........................................................................................68
PrivateFinancing....................................................................................................68
Public/Private Partnerships....................................................................................68
Stateof Montana...................................................................................................68
Community Development Block Grants....................................................................68
Federal Grant Administration...................................................................................69
LocalFunding.........................................................................................................69
City/County Partnerships........................................................................................69
Brownfields................................................................................................................70
V. APPENDIX A..............................................................................................71
Airport Alternatives Detailed Financial Tables and Pro-Formas..........
71
VI. APPENDIX B...............................................................................................78
Improvement Project Planning Level Cost Estimates .....................78
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: District Boundaries..................................................................................
iv
Figure 26: Alternative 3 Comparison to Baseline .......................................................
35
Figure 2: Regional Context Map..............................................................................2
Figure 27: Airport Management Structure Comparison ..............................................
36
Figure 3: Public/Private Airport Lands and Flood Hazard Areas.................................3
Figure 28: Alternative Summary ..............................................................................
38
Figure 4: Planning Timeline....................................................................................4
Figure 29: Baseline and Alternative Returns on Investment .......................................
39
Figure 5: Schedule of Public Outreach Events...........................................................6
Figure 30: Existing Land Use Map ............................................................................
44
Figure 6: Comparison Between 2012 and 2015 Public Comments ..............................7
Figure 31: Improvements Projects and Opportunity Sites Table ..................................
48
Figure 7: Project Website Homepage.......................................................................8
Figure 32: Improvements Projects and Opportunity Sites Map ...................................
49
Figure 8: A Comment"Tag Cloud"............................................................................9
Figure 33: Cemetery Road Improvement Concept ......................................................
50
Figure 9: Public Open House Flyer...........................................................................10
Figure 34: New Elementary School Concept ..............................................................
51
Figure 10: Example of an Informational Handout......................................................10
Figure 35: Dog Park Concept ....................................................................................
52
Figure 11: Public and Stakeholder Opinion on the 3 Alternatives...............................11
Figure 36: Community Park Concept .........................................................................
53
Figure 12: Recreational facilities..............................................................................13
Figure 37: Trail Expansion Concept ...........................................................................
54
Figure 13: Aviation and Non -aviation Development Opportunities .............................14
Figure 38 : Welcome to Kalispell Sign Concept ..........................................................
55
Figure 14: Airport Development Alternatives Financial Summary..............................17
Figure 39: Highway 93 Business Park Design Example ...............................................
56
Figure 15: Airport Financial History.........................................................................25
Figure 40: Highway 93 Business Park Concept..........................................................57
Figure 16: Baseline Financial Projections..................................................................25
Figure 41: Aviation Business Park Concept ................................................................
58
Figure 17: Existing Airport Capital Improvement Plan...............................................26
Figure 42: Park-N-Ride Trailhead Concept .................................................................
59
Figure 18: Alternative 1 Capital Costs and Resulting Revenues..................................27
Figure 43: Relocated City Shop Complex Concept ......................................................
60
Figure 19: Alternative 1 Revenue and Expense Summary...........................................27
Figure 44: 1st Ave Commercial District Concept ........................................................
61
Figure 20: Alternative 1 Comparison to Baseline.......................................................29
Figure 45: Land Use Alternative 1 for Airport Closure ................................................
63
Figure 21: Alternative 2 Capital Costs and Resulting Revenues..................................32
Figure 46: Land Use Alternative 2 for Airport Closure ................................................
64
Figure 22: Alternative 2 Revenue and Expense Summary...........................................32
Figure 47: Concept for a New T-Hanger Complex .......................................................
65
Figure 23: Alternative 2 Comparison to Baseline.......................................................32
Figure 48: 1990 and 2015 Aerial Imagery .................................................................
67
Figure 24: Alternative 3 Capital Costs and Resulting Revenues..................................35
Figure 49: Starbucks Brownfields Project ..................................................................
70
Figure 25: Alternative 3 Revenue and Expense Summary...........................................35
— - Wr -R'r
± •'Ili'£, F�`R' -� 1. FY.y{+ ��f"y �y+T .-1■■, '�
S. Kalispell Urban Penewal District
i�'mac _ _.■� _ '� -
Tax Increment Finance District
0 1/8 Miles 1/4 Miles 1/2 Miles IN
On
dy
230 Acresy-
� ' •ter ..,� +,
ATJF Dist.)
F + s � � ri • *. �..Y YF
_
720 Acres;
(Urban Renewal's
Dist.)
.. — — �77 k'
January 2016
INTRODUCTION
A PLAN AND AVISION
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Kalispell contracted with CTA in December of 2014 tofu rther the
planning effort within the South Kalispell Urban Renewal Planning Area.
The Plan is a result of the failed referendum in November of 2013 related to
the FAA funding opportunity and upgrades to Kalispell City Airport.
The City's Growth Policy and Tax Increment Financing District (TIFD) outline
the City's goals and objectives for this planning area. The Growth Policy
encourages efficient use of space, orderly growth consistent with high
qualityof life,fiscal soundness, environmental conservation and community
vitality; while the TIF District encourages 'increasing development
opportunities, funding mechanism for the Airport, minimizing hazards to
navigation, developing an airport layout plan, and establishing a priority
schedule for plan implementation'
Facing unprecedented growth, the area faces a variety of issues such as
traffic congestion along Highway 93, lack of pedestrian facilities, parks, and
an uncertain future with the Airport, and a need for additional police and
fire services. While these challenges can seem overwhelming, they can
also provide an opportunity to create a vision unique in character to South
Kalispell.
The South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan will incorporate the work done in
prior planning efforts and will be consistent with the City's Growth Policy
while providing new ideas, guidance, and strategies for implementation.
DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
Urban Renewal District
The South Kalispell Urban Renewal District is an approximately 720-acre
area partially within the southern corporate limits of the City of Kalispell
and Flathead County. The area lies in the broad plain of the Stillwater and
Flathead Rivers and their tributaries, lending its topography to be generally
flat or gently sloping.The land drains water to Ashley Creek on the western
and southern boundary, and to the Stillwater River just outside the area's
eastern boundary. Elevations range from about 2,950 to 3,000 feet above
sea level. The roughly triangular district itself is bound by Airport Road on
the west, Cemetery Road on the south, Willow Glen Road on the south and
east, 3rd Avenue and US Highway 93 on the north and east and extending
north the intersection of 13th Street, US Highway 93 and Airport Road.
Duetothe relatively flat terrain in comparison to the surrounding mountain
peaks, the Urban Renewal District area is subject to flooding and FEMA
Flood Insurance Rate Maps indicate a flood hazard area exists around the
Ashley Creek drainage.
There are an estimated 450 parcels of land within the Urban Renewal District
boundaries, with the smallest being 100 square feet and the largest being
27 acres. Average parcel size in the Urban Renewal District is 1.6 acres,
much larger than that of the City of Kalispell (0.39 acres, or 17,000 square
feet). Historically, the district was platted as Bakers Southside Addition,
Browns Addition, Poston Addition, Purdys Addition, Ryker Addition and
Daley Field Subdivision, with Courtyard Subdivision and Diamond Lils
Condo Subdivision being two of the newer subdivisions. Approximately
46% of the Urban Renewal District is in the City of Kalispell with the
remaining 54% in Flathead County.
Most of the land in the Urban Renewal District is privately owned, many
of the largest parcels are public: about 36% is owned by the city, county,
federal government or school district. Roughly 31 % of the Urban Renewal
District is in commercial use, 17% is vacant and 11 % is used for residential.
Tax Increment Financing District (TIFD)
The TIFD comprises approximately 266 parcels over roughly 230 acres
including and surrounding the Kalispell City Airport. Average parcel size
within theTIFD is 0.87 acres.There are an estimated 103 individual property
owners in theTIFD, with the largest being the City of Kalispell, which owns
about 58% of the total land area.
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Foys Lake South Kalispell
Urban Renewal
District
i --L-----j I
0 1/2 1 2 Miles tN
th e a6
Figure 2: Regional Context Map
2 �
January 2016
Figure 3: Public/Private Airport Lands and Flood Hazard Areas
4 3
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
HISTORY OF THE AIRPORT
The Kalispell City Airport (Airport) has a long and rich history nestled in the
back country of Northwest Montana. Kalispell is the only city in Montana
that has two public use airports (2012 Master Plan Update pg. 121).
Kalispell City Airport is a city owned public use general aviation airport that
is located south of the downtown central business district of Kalispell and
encompasses approximately 71+ acres of property.The Airport has been in
operation since 1911 when the first known flight from the immediate area
of Kalispell was made on June 21,1911 from the fairgrounds by Eugene Ely
in a Curtis bi-plane (1979 Kalispell City Airport Mini -Master Plan; Montana
and the Sky, Frank W. Wiley, 1966). The airport has been in its present
location for more than 83 years and is one of the oldest and largest General
Aviation airports in the State of Montana (City of Kalispell website). The
history of the Airport is summarized in Chapter 3 of the 2012 Final Master
Plan.
The planning history for the Kalispell City Airport started back in 1928
when the City purchased 135 acres from various property owners on the
south end of Kalispell. Of the 135 acres purchased in 1928 approximately
71 acres remain in city ownership as the other land parcels have been
sold for various city projects throughout the years (1999 Phase I Master
Plan Airport Feasibility Study prepared by Morrison — Maierle, Inc.). The
following summary of studies shows that the City has recognized the need
to keep the Airport and the subsequent development of south Kalispell in
the forefront as the City continued to grow.
Figure 4: Planning Timeline
1911: First flight from current airport location
HISTORY OF PRIOR PLANNING EFFORTS
1960's and 1970's
In the mid 1960's, the Kalispell Airport Association was a few private aircraft
owners and interested business men who entered into a lease with the City
to manage the Airport. By 1986, management was turned back over to the
City. (T. Jentz chronological history).
Beginning with the 1979 Mini -Master Plan the City recognized the need
to address Airport operation and maintenance as well as necessary
safety upgrades and day to day management procedures. Some of the
recommendations included overlaying the Airport runway, acquiring
additional property to extend the Airport clear zone, and fencing the
Airport.
1993 Kalispell City Airport Neighborhood Plan
In 1993, Montana Planning Consultants of Kalispell, MT prepared
the Kalispell City Airport Neighborhood Plan. This plan had similar
recommendations to extend the runway, remove hazards from the runway
clear zone, and recommended airport zoning regulations for compatible
land use be adopted. City Council adopted the plan on September 19,
1994.
1928: City purchases 135 acres of land for the airport
1960s: Kalispell Airport
Association formed
4 1
1911 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960
January 2016
1996 Airport Layout Plan (ALP)
The city council directed Pecia and Associate to develop an Airport Layout
Plan (ALP) that would comply with FAA standards to assist the City in future
planning. The Plan completed in August 1996 reiterated many of the same
projects: relocate the runway 900 feet to the south; provide for a B-2 design;
widen the runway from 60 to 75 feet; lengthen the runway to 4,300 feet.
A March 28,1998 council action limited the City to no more than $1 million
dollars in local funds for airport activities - either as matching funds with
FAA or to be used for local improvements. (T.Jentz chronological summary).
1996 Kalispell City Airport/Athletic Complex Redevelopment Plan
The Kalispell City Airport/Athletic Complex Redevelopment Plan prepared
by Kalispell Planning, Economic & Community Development Office took
the 1993 Neighborhood Plan and suggested the following goals such as
minimizing hazards to airport navigation; developing an Airport Layout
Plan; increasing development opportunities on nearby properties;
promoting compatible land uses in and around the Airport; establishing
funding mechanisms for airport operations; and establishing a priority
for plan implementation. Projects included: extend runway to the south
to obtain 4,700 feet and purchase property; remove objects within the
Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) and purchase private property located
within the protection zone; fence the Airport; relocate 16 baseball and
soccer fields in the vicinity of the Airport.
19;
'8: Airport "Mini -Master Plan"
1986: Airport management turned back to city from Kalispe
1994: Kalispell City Airport Neighborhood Plan
1996: Kalispell City Airport/Athletic Complex Redev. Plan
1996: Airport Layout Plan
1 1999: Phase I Master Plan
2012: Final Master Plan
2013: Airport Referendum
2015: S. Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan
The Plan recommended that airport improvements be financed by a
combination of a TIFD and by the sale of airport properties (ball fields,
under used Highway 93 frontage, etc.). The redevelopment plan was
adopted by the City Council in July, 1996 along with the South Kalispell
Airport TIFD, which expires July 1, 2020.
1999 Phase I Master Plan Airport Feasibility Study
The Phase I Master Plan prepared by Morrison — Maierle, Inc. was partially
funded by a FAA planning grant. The plan developed 5 alternatives and
provided conceptual costs for each. Alternatives included upgrading the
Airport, moving the runway, rotating the runway, extending the runway,
acquiring land for redevelopment, and relocating the Airport.
The plan recommended Alternate 2. This included a five -degree rotation
of the runway, moving the runway south 900 feet and construction a B-2
airport with an initial 3,600 foot runway. The plan was adopted November
1, 1999.
2012 Final Master Plan
In 2012, Stelling Engineers, Inc. prepared a 2012 Final Master Plan.The plan
was an extensive process which included a detailed analysis of the Airports
inventory, forecasted use, facility requirements, improvement alternatives,
development constraints, and a capital improvement program. The
planning process also included an extensive public
outreach component. City Council adopted
II Airport Association the plan in April of 2012.
1970 1980 1990
2000 2010 2015
4 5
2015
MEETING DATES JAN FEB MAP APR DESCRIPTION
Project Kick-off Meeting
JANUARYI2
■
Primary Stakeholder Meetings
FEBRUARY 11-13
■
Launched ProjectWebsite/Survey
FEBRUARYI6
■
Mass mailing of public open forum invitation to all
FEBRUARY 23
■
property owners within a 100 foot boundary of the
airport
Advertisements regarding the project and the
FEBRUARY 2015
public open forum were placed in the Flathead
Beacon and Daily Interlake
KGEZ Radio Interview
MARCH 3
■
Community Open House Forum
MARCH 10
■
Media interviews with the Flathead Beacon, Daily
MARCH 10
■
Interlake, and local TV stations
Personal telephone calls and interviews with
MARCH 11-12
■
additional primary stakeholder contacts, including
all hangar lessees/owners
Mass email group was created to keep all
MARCH 13
■
interested parties connected to the project
Community Open House Forum Design
APRIL 7
■ Charette/Workshop
Presentation to City Boards on Preliminary
APRIL 29
■ Findings Report
Figure5: Schedule of Public Outreach Events
January 2016
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS
2015 Project Kick Off
January 12th, 2015 kicked off the official South Kalispell Urban Renewal
planning effort with team members from the City of Kalispell, CTA, and
Mead & Hunt meeting to discuss the goals and strategies for this large land
planning exercise. The table top planning exercise included looking at the
larger picture of South Kalispell with the goal to create a unique character
and design by creating a distinction between the developments north of
Kalispell and the Core Area Downtown Plan. South Kalispell desires to be
a uniquely identified destination that meets the needs of South Kalispell
residents as well as the larger Flathead Valley area including the tourism
economy.
The primary focus of this large land planning exercise was to discuss goals
and strategies for the current and future development opportunities
within the South Kalispell Urban Renewal District, while creating a unique
character and livability to the South Kalispell area.
Public Outreach Process
Early in the planning process, the project team identified several primary
stakeholder groups representing a large and diverse constituent of
Kalispell businesses and residents as the target audience for the first public
outreach effort. During the week of February 11th-13th, 2015, CTA staff
met individually with members from this group including the Chamber
of Commerce, Kalispell Downtown Association, Montana West Economic
Development, Kalispell Convention & Visitors Bureau, Kalispell School
District, Kalispell Quiet Skies, City Airport Advisory Board and Urban
Renewal Committee, public works and parks departments, Flathead Valley
Community College, Glacier Park International Airport, Red Eagle Aviation,
Kalispell Regional Medical Center, Hilton Garden Inn, and Aero Inn.
Additional personal telephone contacts were made to individual airport
hangar owners/lessees, and other business enterprises including REMAX
Real Estate Developers, Fun Beverage, Greg Goode Trailer Sales, Flathead
County Fairgrounds, Flathead Valley Hockey Association, and Flathead
Area Young Professionals.
Summary of Public Outreach from the 2012 Airport Master Plan
Update
The 2012Airport Master Plan Update included public open house workshops
where 89 comments were received from the public (2012 Master Plan pg.
124). Responses included those that represented businesses as well as
individual responses from within and around the surrounding community.
The responses in 2012 were overwhelming in favor of keeping and
upgrading the Airport. The public responses were in contrast to the failed
referendum in 2013 which negated the council's decision to accept FAA
money and upgrade the Airport per the recommendations in the Master
Plan.
The 2015 public outreach process has yielded similar results, with the
public in favor of keeping the Airport and upgrading it to meet safety and
compliance standards for general aviation airports. The question on how
to fund these improvements remains.
Figure 6: Comparison Between 2012 and 2015 Public Comments
-7nni 74% - 2015
Keep Airport Do Not Keep Airport
4 7
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
The week of February 23rd, 2015 individual mailers were sent to all property
owners within the 100 foot boundary of the City of Kalispell Airport inviting
them to the public open forum on March 10th, 2015 at the Hilton Garden
Inn and providing information regarding the project website and survey.
Project Website
As social media becomes the new 'norm' for keeping a large part of a
communities constituency connected, CTA created a project specific
website for the South Kalispell Urban Planning effort. This project website
was launched the middle of February and remained updated and active
through the planning process.The website provided a key public outreach
component by providing a survey specific to South Kalispell and the urban
planning effort.
Questions were asked in a manner that would provide holistic feedback on
the development of South Kalispell and also gauge the temperature of the
community's commitment to the Kalispell City Airport.
Figure 7. Project Website
Homepoge
The survey and public outreach effort had over 100 responses and
comments and the results have been combined with the primary
stakeholder interviews and public open forum interviews and included on
the Public Input Survey Response Board.
Project Website Link:
http://southkalispelIurbanrenewaI.com/
News and Media
Both of Kalispell's local newspapers (the Flathead Beacon and Daily
Interlake) do a great job engaging in local community issues. Our project
team was in contact with the local papers regarding the planning effort
including placing advertisements for the March 10th, 2015 open house
and staying in contact regarding the Plan's progress and milestones.
Newspaper articles covered the planning efforts.
Local radio host John Hendrix did a radio spot on March 3rd, 2015 covering
the open forum and continues to follow the plan and progress of the plan.
Local TV stations also took an interest and covered the public open forum
on March 10th, 2015.
NOW
January 2016
COMMENT BOARDS AND SURVEYS
Public Open Forums During the public meetings, several comment boards were introduced to
gather broad comments and opinions. An online survey provided further
There were two public forums held at the Hilton Garden Inn. The first opportunity to gather comments, themes and opinions.
public forum on March 10th, 2015 yielded a large turnout with interactive
participation using post -it note boards maps and surveys. The second The following are examples of the questions posed on the boards and
public open forum held on April 7th yielded a smaller turnout however
most of the attendees were engaging for the first time.
The public outreach process yielded a dynamic yet consistent theme of
comments that are weighted in response shown on the Public Results
Survey Board. Priorities seem to be increasing the quality of livability in
the South Kalispell area that includes connectivity of streets, bike and
pedestrian pathways, and increased park and trail use. Comments related
to the Kalispell City Airport were mixed with slightly more opinions favored
in keeping the Airport and making it more sustainable.
Coffee/ RestaurantslGrocery Agriculture
Clean It Up
Dog Park Convention Center
Entrance Commercial
tion
Helicopters are a Nuisance Helicopters are Not a Nuisance
Fitness FAA Compliance/Funding
Incompatible Use Housing& Mixed"Use
Water
Office & Industrial Air Keep Airport
Phase Out Airport parks & Trails
Scphoolsilot ility Traffic plane watching
Noise Tax Burden
Tourism Walkability
Figure 8: A Comment "Tag Cloud" that emphasizes the most
frequently mentioned issues, topics or concerns from the public
comment posting boards. The size of the word correlates to the
number of times that topic was mentioned.
online survey:
Q: What do you like the most/least about the Airport?
Q: What environmental issues most concern you?
Q: What is the biggest change (good or bad) you have seen in the past 5
years?
Q: Name some recreational facilities you would like to see?
Q: What kinds of public services, infrastructure, housing or commerce
would you like to see in the South Kalispell area?
Response highlights included:
• "I am neutral and sympathize with both sides"
• "We like watching the planes take off and land"
• "Noise and danger from airplanes is unacceptable"
• "The Airport is critical to this community"
• "It is a tax pit, close it!"
• "Economic driver for Kalispell"
One of the key pieces of input gathered regarded the general notion of
the Airport's future. Three alternatives were presented: 1) keep the Airport
as currently configured, 2) bring the Airport into FAA compliance, and 3)
phase out airport operations.
4 9
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Figure 9: Public
Open House Flyer
SOUTH KALISPELL
Urban Penewal Plan
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Since the late 1970's there have been a number of studies completed
regarding the future of the City of Kalispell Airport These studies have
Included a thorough analysis of the existing condition of the Airport
as well as Identified significant barriers related to the redevelopment
of the Air port. Over the years, bas lc operation and maintenance of the
Airport has allowed IL to remain In operation, however, the current con-
dition of the Airport does not meet the minimum FAA design standards
and therefore Is not eligible to receive federal funding via grants or low
I nterest loans.
With minimal capital Investment over the last several decades, the
Airport Is face ng a future th at will require significant financial capital to
mitigate these current barriers.
PREVIOUS STUDIES
• 1979 Kalispell City Airport Mini Master Plan prepared by TAP, Inc;Avla
-
tion & Economic Conrt sultants
• 1993 Kalispell city Al rpoNeighborhood Plan
• 1996 Kalispell City Alrpo rtlAthletic Complex Redevelopment Plan Analy-
sis prepared by the Kalispell Planning and Economic & Community
Development Department.
• 1999 Feasibility Master Plan Study prepared by Morrison - Malerle, Inc.
• 2001 Site Selection Study prepared by Robert Peccla &Associates, Inc
I Federal Aviation Administration and Montana Aeronautics Division
• 2002 Final Environmental Assessment prepared by Robert Peccla & As-
s ociates,lnc.
• 2012 City of Kalispell Airport - Master Plan Update - Final
i
COMMUNITY
Please join us for a
OPEN HOUSE
South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan
art of the
The City of Kalispell has hired CTA to assist in creating the future vision for South Kalispell. This
our community. Please join us, we want to hear from you.
effort includes determining the future of the City of Kalispell Airport. The time is now to e P
solution and help create the future vision of y
Please visit the project webs One for more information: t //s ith6 lisoell uhanren wal o
TUESDAY APRIL 1T", FROM 2:OOPM TO 7:OOPM
Garden Inn,1840 US Hwy 93 I Kalispell ,MT
oa m" Hilton
---a 1.6
me u�nY S7 m nr s
HISTOPV OF AVIATION
CURRENT
The Kalispell City Airport has a long and rich history with the first
CTA has been hired by the City of Kalispell to provide the City of
The effort will Include a `live' project website that wl ll encourage public
known flipTofrom the Immediate area of Kalispell made on
Kalispell, Airport Advisory Board, and Community with guidance for the
comment as well as keep the planning process as dynamic as possible.
June 21, 1911 from the fairgrounds by Eugene Ely In a
future development of South Kalls pelf. The objective of this plan Is to
Public outreach, Input, and feedback are critical to the successful
Curtis bl-plane (Source. 1979 Kalispell City Air-
assist the Community with the future planning and vision of South
outcome of the South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan.
port Mlnl-Master Plan; Montana and the Sky,
Kalls pelt that Includes an analysis of the Airport 's future development
Frank W Wiley, 1966) and has been
opts ons. The final document will be the South alispell Urban Renewal
FUTU PE
In Its present location for more
than 83 years. It Is one of
Plan.
The future of the Airport will be Influenced by feedback received from
the oldest and larg- _
One of CTA's primary roles Is to collect public Input from as many stake-
the community. This plan Is an Interactive process. Be part of the
es General AvI ation
holders as possible. CTA will be meeting l ndlvIdually with stakeholders
solution and help create the future vision of your community)
a lrports In the State
as well as larger forum public meetings to facilitate feedback regarding
of Montana (Source.
City of Kalispell web-
the future of the Airport and vision for South Kalispell.
.. Architects Engineers
Project Stephanie Ray
site).
contact Ph.atezzzoloaaxtlsos
' em. stephanieay@ctagroup com
Figure 70: Example of an
Informational Handout
10 1
January 2016
Figure 11: Public and Stakeholder Opinion on the Three Alternatives
Keep Airport
as Currently
Configured
Phase Out
Airport
Operations
26% /
32%
Bring Airport
into FAA
Compliance
Figure 11 above illustrates the breakdown of opinion.
Outside of meetings, workshops and forums, the public and stakeholders
had access to the online survey creating an opportunity for a larger reach
of the public. The survey generally yielded more detailed comments, as
participants could submit responses on their own time.
EMERGING TRENDS AND THEMES
The following represents the trends and themes that emerged from the
various input and public participation sessions:
TRAILS/PARKS/BIKE PATHS OR DOG PARK
Recreational facilities like bike and pedestrian trails or dog parks
attract people to an area from nearby neighborhoods. This idea was
widely supported by the public.
MIXED USE HOUSING
Housing provides the rooftops needed to support various commercial
retail or office uses. New amenities can also be introduced when
designed with a mixed use component. There was interest in offering
different housing types and levels of affordability.
• COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
The public commented that uses such as fitness centers, coffee,
restaurants, grocery, light industry, and office were desired commercial
uses in the neighborhood.
CITY AND AIRPORT ENTRANCE/SIGNAGE ISSUES
South Kalispell lacks a defined entrance into the City. The public
supported an entrance sign. The airport entrance and access also
lacks visibility and could be improved.
• TRAFFIC
Citizens considered that increased development would intensify
traffic on south Kalispell's streets.
SCHOOLS
Noted was the importance of quality neighborhood schools, as
well as their school's ability to serve new students in the future.
Comments also centered around the school spurring new residential
developments which would increase traffic.
CONVENTION CENTER
Additional conference or convention space would increase the area's
strength as a commercial district.
PRESERVING AGRICULTURE
Agriculture will remain a key contributing factor to the region's
economy and should be preserved to maintain existing community
character.
ALTERNATIVES
The three main alternatives emerged as follows: 1) Keep Airport as
Currently Configured, 2) Bring Airport into FAA Compliance, and 3)
Phase out Airport Operations.
4 11
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
IMPROVE LOCAL ROADS
The degradation of existing roads such as Airport Rd and Cemetery Rd
is seen as a concern.
CLEAN UP EXISTING BUSINESSES
Having a clean and uncluttered commercial environment is important
to keeping and attracting new business as well as promoting quality
of life. Some comments centered around cleaning up blighted
properties and incentivizing businesses to improve their business
frontage and curb appeal.
RECREATION: BALL FIELDS, ICE RINK,
AMUSEMENT PARK, SIGHTSEEING, PLANE
WATC H I N G
Numerous and diverse active recreational facilities promote the public
health and welfare. People desired being able to recreate where they
live. Less travel time to recreational areas such as parks and ballfields
was desired.
WALKABILITY AND CONNECTIONSTO S.
KALISPELL AND DOWNTOWN CORE
Attracting neighborhood amenities like local commercial uses
complements promoting bike/pedestrian facilities in creating
a well-connected, walkable environment. Creating a walkable
community was a very popular comment.
HERITAGE OF AVIATION AND ACCESSIBILITY
FOR LOCAL PILOTS
Maintaining the small neighborhood airport activities will continue
to allow ease of access for local pilots, a long-standing amenity in the
area.
HOTEL AN D TOU RISM DISTRICT
An opportunity exists to promote South Kalispell as a tourism
destination complete with abundant hotels and commercial
amenities. Most of the hotel accommodations for the City of Kalispell
are located in the south urban renewal area.
The public outreach process for the South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan
prompted concerned business groups and citizens alike to look specifically
at the South Kalispell area. While being one large land mass, there are two
very unique opportunities within this area. South Kalispell as a whole offers
a combined mix of industrial, commercial, residential and City uses with
the stronger theme being commercial and industry.
Thesecond distinct use within this largerarea istheoperationofthe Kalispell
City Airport. The general consensus was weighted in favor of keeping the
Airport, with the concern focusing on the Airport becoming more fiscally
constrained and able to support annual operation and maintenance as
well as reinvestment projects. It was clear that the community did not want
the Airport to become a tax burden.
Strong public opinion supported a walkable community with trails and
parks; an entrance sign into South Kalispell; mixed use development
including commercial and residential as well as light industry was also
very popular. There was also interest in incentivizing existing businesses to
make their business more attractive.
12 1
ilk
IL
lb-
PL
f it
TA
AWMW
IN J FF
y
Ilk~!
fi tf1
-
. t
Figure 12: Recreational facilities, like the Begg Park baseball fields, l
were mentioned as a valuable community asset in south Kalispell.
(Photo: K. Brady) hp, ' f
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Figure 13: Aviation and Non -aviation Development Opportunities
❑BLUE: Aviation compatible
business development
opportunities
GREEN: Non -aviation
business development
opportunity (city could
repurpose for commercial
development)
r—,i
L _ J City Limits
14 1
January 2016
ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS Mead
Si�lunt
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we have seen in the public outreach process there was no clear
overwhelming desire from the community to close the Airport. The public
seems to support continued operation of the Airport if two goals are met:
1) the Airport is not expanded to take additional commercial aircraft; 2)
the Airport does not become a tax burden to the community. The only
definitive decision made by the public was to vote down FAA funding to
expand the Airport.
During the"analysis of options" exercise, each of the alternatives presented
below contained a series of decisions that would need to be made by
the political body. There was no alternative clearly directing a decision to
continue operating the Airport in the future, nor to close the Airport. What
was made clear during the analysis is that this general aviation airport
cannot sustain itself without full development of available property,
and FAA participation in capital improvement projects. Without FAA
participation in capital projects, the Airport operates at a loss even with
full development of revenue producing property.
Airports are an essential public facility, meaning that they provide benefit to
the community beyond their core function. General aviation (GA) airports
support recreational, business and flight training aviation activities on a
regular basis. They provide jobs for those that work at the airport, and the
services and products purchased by airport businesses contribute to the
local economy. Business GA users may come to the region in support of
other industries (such as business managers and owners), and although
their economic contribution may not be directly tied to the Airport, their
activities in the region make a substantial economic contribution and
the Airport facilitates their access to the community. Beyond day to day
activities, airports play a vital role in emergency response, law enforcement,
and disaster management when needed.
If the city wishes to keep the Airport an active and viable community
asset there will need to be a concerted political decision and financial
commitment from the City. Efforts to reinvest in capital projects and create
additional long term revenue generating sources will need to be a priority.
Revenue options include: increased business opportunities, taxation, and
FAA funding.
The option of selling and redeveloping the Airport is a potential alternative
for the City as a long term program to eliminate a financial and managerial
commitment. When making this decision the City should weigh the
discernible value of the Airport and its broader reaching impacts to the
community. Additional considerations should include the large amount of
available developable land in the greater Kalispell area. At this time, there
is no shortage of developable properties within the North or South areas
of Kalispell. If the Airport is closed for redevelopment, the redevelopment
of this large land mass could create a long-term blighted property that
may sit vacant for many of years until development pressure increased. It
should be noted however that there is a considerable amount of existing
infrastructure in the form of water and sewer mains within the Airport
property making it attractive for development.
This report analyzes the financial, community and aviation -related impacts
of three improvement /reorganization alternatives for the Kalispell City
Airport (S27 or"the Airport") and provides two additional alternatives that
would require further research and analysis. Improvement alternatives are
being considered because the City operates the Airport at a net loss, and
improvement projects are needed to extend the life of the Airport, and
to comply with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) design standards
should the Airport desire to accept FAA money in the future.
4 15
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONT)
The report looked at near -term (five-year) capital costs and near -and
long-term (five years and beyond) operating cost and revenue projections.
The goal of this analysis is to weigh the needed and recommended
airport improvement projects against the financial feasibility and return
on investment of their implementation. The five alternatives include the
following:
1. Keep the Airport as it is using City funding
2. Close the Airport
3. Request FAA funding for the Airport in its current alignment
4. Incorporation into an Airport Authority
5. Privatization of the Airport
A"baseline"financial forecast was also prepared to show what it would cost
to keep the Airport running'as-is' with only the necessary improvements.
The financial analysis includes a discounted cash flow analysis QCFA)
and projections of capital costs. Operating costs and revenues grow in
proportion with the level of investment in infrastructure at the Airport.
There are too many unknowns and political uncertainties associated with
Alternative 4 and Alternative 5 so they are not included in the financial
analysis.
Alternatives 1 and 3 both make the necessary improvements to keep the
Airport operational while Alternative 2 closes the Airport and allows the
City to use this property for other uses, some of which could produce
revenue that is not accounted for in this analysis. Given what is known
today, both Alternative 2, Close the Airport, and Alternative 3, Request FAA
Funding, provide the same valuation in the long term, but for considerably
different levels of investment. In terms of capital investment, Alternative 2
costs $2 million more than Alternative 3. Key differences between the two
are that Alternative 2 eliminates the Airport and the financial obligation of
running it, while Alternative 3 will require the City to operate the Airport
for at least 20 years beyond the date of the last grant received. Alternative
2 will likely use up most, or all, of the available tax increment finance (TIF)
district funding that is available while Alternative 3 will make substantial
use of FAA funds. Alternative 1 does not produce a positive valuation.
Alternative 2 eliminates the Airport as a transportation asset for the City
which may have economic impacts beyond airport finances. Should the
City be able to convert airport property to a revenue producing land use,
either via tax revenue or a city -owned use that generates more revenue
than the Airport, then Alternative 2 may provide additional financial
benefit over the other alternatives. Additional research will be needed on
Alternative 2 to make this assessment.
NTRODUCTION
In 2013, after years of airport studies, a plan was in place to bring the
Kalispell City Airport (S27 or "the Airport") up to current Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) standards with 90% of the funding provided by the
FAA. The City Council voted to move forward with the planned projects;
however, a local voter referendum was passed which reversed the City
Council decision and ended the planned updates to the Airport. Since that
time the future of the Kalispell City Airport has been uncertain and the
Airport has lacked a long-term plan.
In late 2014 the City of Kalispell selected a consultant team to assist the
City with gathering public opinion and providing a long-term plan for the
southern area of Kalispell, including the Airport. As approximately 10%
(71.4 acres) of the study area is occupied by the Airport, the future of the
entire south Kalispell area is closely tied to the future of the Airport.
16 1
January 2016
Stakeholder and public outreach meetings were conducted in February and
March of 2015.Over one hundred people provided input over the course
of these public outreach sessions and 17 stakeholders met individually
with the consultant team.
This report is organized into two sections; Existing Conditions and
Alternatives and Financial Implications. The intent of this report is to
provide sufficient information on airport development options so that
decision makers can make a decision about the future of the Airport which
best reflects the future considerations of the City.
A discounted cash flow analysis tries to work out the value of an investment
today, based on projections of how much money the investment will make
in the future. Comparing the Alternatives using a discounted cash flow
analysis allows the City to consider the present value of an investments
future cash flow in order to arrive at a current fair value estimate for the
investment.
Figure 14: Airport DevelopmentAlternatives Financial Summary
Alternative
Net Present Value (2015 $, 7% Rate)
DCFA Valuation
Capital Costs
Baseline
($1,400,000)
$900,000
1
($1,300,000)
$900,000
2
$400,000
$2,900,000
3
$400,000
$400,000
DCFA valuation equals sum of five year cash flows and ongoing (beyond five years) income.
Mead
&-flunt
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Prior Airport Studies
Major airport planning efforts and studies that have been completed over
the past two decades include the following studies.
• 1999 Airport Master Plan
• 2001 Site Selection Study
• 2002 Environmental Assessment
• 2008 Airport Economic Impact Study
• 2009 Airport Layout Plan Update
• 2012 Final Master Plan Update and Environmental Assessment
A recurring theme of these Studies is the Airport's lack of compliance
with FAA standards. The Master Plans and subsequent Environmental
Assessment (EA) identified areas of the airfield which do not comply with
current FAA design standards.The Master Plans and EA provided a series of
programmatic approaches for compliance with FAA standards.
Airport and Airfield Configuration
The Airport is located immediately south of the Kalispell city core, 7 miles
north of Flathead Lake,16 miles south of the City of Whitefish, and 23 miles
southwest of Glacier National Park. The Airport is a general aviation (GA)
facility with one 3,600 foot long runway (designated as Runway 13-31)
with a full length parallel taxiway on the east side and a partial parallel
taxiway on the west. The runway has no visual landing aids other than an
airport beacon and non-standard runway edge lights. The Airport has no
instrument landing procedures. Jet fuel and 100LL (100 low lead is the
common fuel for piston powered aircraft) are available at the Airport, as
well as major airframe and power plant repair.
4 17
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Airport Role
The FAA's National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) classifies
Kalispell City Airport as a "local/basic airport" The NPIAS defines a local/
basic airport as follows::
Local: Supplements local communities by providing access to local
and regional markets. These airports have moderate levels of activity
with some multiengine propeller aircraft. These airports average
about 33-based propeller -driven aircraft and no jets.
Basic. Supports general aviation activities, often serving aeronautical
functions within the local community such as emergency response
and access to remote communities. These airports have moderate
levels of activity with an average of 10 propeller -driven aircraft and
no jets.
The Airport plays many roles in the community, which are explained in
greater detail below.
ABaseforPilots. Kalispell City Airport is a convenient general aviation
airport for pilots who live or work in Kalispell and the greater Flathead
Valley.
A Point of Air Access for Visitors to the Region and Community.
Kalispell City Airport is a gateway for general aviation visitors to
northwest Montana and the nearby Glacier National Park. The region
draws tourists and business people alike.
A Place for Commerce and Business. Kalispell City Airport is used as a
gateway to the region for commerce and business, bringing additional
revenue and economic activity to the region.
A Base forAviation-Related Community Emergency Services. Kalispell
City Airport is an important access point for emergency medical
transportation, search and rescue operations, law enforcement
operations, and other emergency services. Following natural disasters,
airports which are not damaged are utilized as a point of access for
emergency and disaster relief services.
Should ground transportation routes be blocked or impassable, air
transportation may be the only
access point for these services.
Other Area Airports
Glacier Park International Airport (KGPI)
is located eight miles to the northeast.
KGPI is a non -hub primary airport which
accommodates commercial air carrier
service, military and general aviation
activity for the region with its 9,007 foot
A runways number reflects
the magnetic heading of
that runway. The magnetic
heading is rounded to the
nearest ten degrees and the
zero is omitted. For example:
runway 13-31 reflectmagnetic
headings of 130 and 310
degrees respectively.
long primary runway and 3,504 foot
long crosswind runway. Other GA airports within 50 miles of Kalispell City
Airport that have paved runways include:
• Polson (8S1) - 30 miles
• Hot Springs (S09) — 36 miles
• Ronan (7S0) — 38 miles
• Libby (S59) — 48 miles
Aviation Activity at the Airport
Kalispell City Airport is a non -towered airport,
meaning that it does not have an air traffic
control tower. It is difficult to obtain accurate
counts of aircraft activity at non -towered
airports because there is not a system in place
to count every flight. The 2012 Final Master
An operation refers
to one take off or
one landing. A
touch - and - go
is counted as two
operations.
Plan Update used 15,800 annual operations for the baseline, increasing
to 27,686 annual operations within the years 2023-2032. This equates
to approximately 42 operations per day on average. These numbers are
typical of a single runway GA airport of this size throughout the nation.
As is commonly the case with non -towered GA airports, the FAA Terminal
Area Forecast (TAF) projections show no change in aviation activity from
2015 levels. The reason for this is that FAA forecasters lack sufficient
local knowledge to predict changes. A more realistic forecast scenario is
January 2016
that airport activity will respond to local economic and social changes.
According to County records ', Flathead County experienced a 22%
increase in population between the years 2000 and 2010, or about 2% per
year on average. The City of Kalispell grew at 40% over the ten year period
between 2000 to 2010, or 4% per year on average. Population growth does
not directly correlate to demand for aviation; however, if population is
growing as a result of economic growth, then the region may experience
growth in aviation activity as well.
Traffic Patterns
Although the Airport only has one runway, there are two runway ends
which may be used for takeoffs and landings. Left traffic patterns are used
to serve both Runway 13 and 31.This means that aircraft can be expected to
fly on both the east and west sides of the Airport when arriving, departing
or performing touch -and -goes. Aircraft will also likely be arriving and
departing using straight -in and straight-out procedures aligned with the
runway.
When conditions warrant pilots are encouraged to observe the following
local noise abatement procedures and instructors are requested to
emphasize these procedures to their student pilots. Noise abatement
procedures are voluntary — not regulatory. The Airport encourages
pilots to use noise abatement procedures as part of its good neighbor
policy with surrounding land uses; however, there is no way of tracking
compliance, incentivizing compliance, and punishing non-compliance.
Noise abatement procedures are intended to reduce the level and duration
DOWNWIND
BASE
-4
FINAL
45 ENfRY
UPWIND
45 DEPARTURE
,TRAIGHT-OUT
DEPARTURE
Mead
&flunt
of aircraft noise exposure by noise sensitive land uses, such as schools and
educational facilities, residences, and places of worship.
• The preferred "No Wind" take -off runway is Runway 13.
• The preferred"No Wind" full stop landing runway is Runway 31.
• When departing RWY 13, and leaving the traffic pattern, aircraft
should climb straight out, avoiding the KGEZ radio towers, and
proceed enroute.
• When departing RWY 31, and leaving the traffic pattern, if
practicable, aircraft should make a 60 degree turn left or right and
climb to cruise altitude.
• After take -off, reduce power to recommended climb settings as soon
as practical. Slight power reductions will significantly reduce noise
levels.
• When practicing touch and go landings at night, pilots are
encouraged to use the facilities at KGPI.
• In constant -speed -propeller aircraft, if safety and the operators
manual permits, avoid using high rpm settings in the traffic pattern.
Airport Constraints
The Airport has a series of existing constraints. Some of these are related to
off -airport land uses, while others are safety and setback standards which
are not met.This section focuses on those constraints related to the Airport
in its existing configuration, not the planned developments recommended
in the 1999 and 2012 Master Plans.
Part 77 Obstructions
Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 77, is titled Safe, Efficient
Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace. Part 77 specifies the
details of a series of three-dimensional airspace surfaces which radiate
from an airport. Part 77 provides the FAA with standards for designating
penetrations to these surfaces as airspace obstructions.
The 1999 Airport Master Plan and 2012 Final Master Plan Update identify
two broadcast antenna towers as being penetrations to the Part 77 airspace
4 19
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
surfaces and the FAA has designated these towers as airspace obstructions.
The two towers penetrate the existing horizontal surface and the Runway
31 approach surface. If left unresolved, the obstructions would continue
to pose a hazard to air navigation and could prevent the Airport from ever
obtaining instrument approach procedures.
Runway Protection Zones
Runway Protection Zones (RPZ) are an FAA design standard aimed at
protecting people and property on the ground from an aircraft accident
occurring prior to, or beyond the end of a runway. FAA standards for what
is considered a compatible use have changed over time. FAA Advisory
2L):1 CONICAL SURFACE
APPROACH SWPE----110111ZON7AL SURFACE
7:1 TRANSITIONAL SU RFAGE --- / ,_RUNWAY
PRIMARY SURFACE-'
TYPICAL FAR PART 77 SURFACES
Circular 150/5300-13A (change 1) specifies what land use are permissible
within the RPZ without further evaluation. Those uses are:
• Farming that meets airport design standards.
• Irrigation channels that meet the requirements of AC 150/5200-33
and FAA/USDA manual, Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports.
• Airport service roads, as long as they are not public roads and are
directly controlled by the Airport operator.
• Underground facilities, as long as they meet other design criteria,
such as RSA requirements, as applicable.
• Unstaffed NAVAIDs and facilities, such as equipment for airport
facilities that are considered fixed -by -function in regard to the RPZ.
Land uses otherthan those specified above require additional compatibility
evaluation by the FAA. The Airport currently has multiple land uses located
within the RPZs for Runway 13 and 31 that the FAA would likely consider
incompatible such as residential uses and public roads. The FAA requires
closer analysis of incompatible land uses when a "triggering event" occurs.
Triggering events that would warrant closer analysis are:
• An airfield project (e.g., runway extension, runway shift)
• A change in the critical design aircraft that increases the RPZ
dimensions
• Anew or revised instrument approach procedure that increases the
RPZ dimensions
• A local development proposal in the RPZ (either new or
reconfigured).
Additional Improvements Identified
The 1999 and 2012 Airport Master Plans identified the following
improvement projects in order to bring the Airport into compliance with
FAA standards in its current configuration.
• Increase separation between runway and parallel taxiways from 130
feet to 150 feet
• Widen taxiways from 20 feet to 25 feet
• Acquire property needed for 250 foot wide Runway Object Free Area
• Installation of a complete perimeter fence system
• Runway lighting system upgrades
• Replacement of the existing airport beacon
• Installation of Precision Approach Path Indicators, a lighted
segmented circle and windsock, and reflectors along the edge of the
taxiway and apron
20 1
January 2016
• Airport Business and Lease Structures
The 2012 Master Plan notes that Kalispell City Airport did not have a
pavement survey completed as part of the 2012 "State Survey of General
Aviation Airports"due to the absence of FAA funded pavements at S27.The
Master Plan notes that there is some cracking, weathering, and oxidation
occurring at the Airport during the inventory in 2012. The Master Plan
capital improvement plan recommended runway reconstruction occur in
the 2016-2018 grant years, with taxiway reconstruction to follow in 2019.
Due to the absence of pavement condition data, this analysis relies on the
Master Plan as the most recent assessment of pavement condition and
schedules improvement projects according to the City of Kalispell's capital
improvement plan.
According to a 2012 Rates and Charges Survey conducted by the Montana
Aeronautics Division, the ground lease rates at Kalispell City Airport are
some of the most expensive in Montana and T-hangar lease rates are on
the higher side of average. As of March 2015, there are 16 leaseholders on
the Airport. The terms of the leases vary from 1 year lease for a T-hangar to
a 99 year lease for the Hilton Garden Inn. Lease rates vary depending on
the type of lease:
• Rates for private ground leases are $0.16 per square foot of hangar
space per year.
T-hangar units are owned by two private entities and are rented at $200-
$250 per year. There are 20 T-hangar units on the airport parking apron
(Gross), and 10 additional T-hangar units on the northwest side of the
Airport (Billmayer).The Airport collects 50 percent ofT-hangar rent from the
private entities, and is guaranteed a minimum payment of $500 a month
perT-hangar building (not perT-hangar unit) regardless of occupancy.
The Airport charges a $0.06 per gallon fuel flowage fee.
For comparison, the following rates and charges are included for other
Montana GA airports. These rates are as reported in the 2012 Rates and
Charges Survey conducted by the Montana Aeronautics Division:
• Big Timber - $0.15 per square foot for commercial, $0.10 per square
foot for private ground lease
Mead
&-flunt
• Chester - $0.12 per square foot per year for ground lease, $250 per
year for hangar
• Eureka - $0.05 per square foot per year for ground lease
• Fairview - $0.06 per square foot per year for private ground lease
• Fort Benton - $75 - $140 per month for hangars
• Glasgow - $0.12 x 1.2 square foot for commercial, $0.10 x 1.2 square
foot for private ground lease $70-$100 per month for T-Hangars
• Lewistown - $0.09 per square foot for ground lease, $55 - $90 per
month for hangars
• Livingston - $0.16 per square foot for private hangar ground lease,
$103 per month for T-Hangar
• Malta - $0.10 per square foot for private ground lease, $0.20 per
square foot for commercial, $100 per month forT-Hangars.
• Plentywood - $0.08 per square foot for private ground lease, $0.10
per square foot for commercial ground lease
• Stevensville - $0.06 per square foot of ground lease, $150-$210 per
month for hangars.
2013 Airport Improvement Voter Referendum
In 2013, a plan was in place to bring the Airport into compliance with FAA
design standards. The FAA had allocated funding for the majority of the
projects and the Kalispell City Council voted to move forward. However,
opponents of the Airport improvement projects tookthe issue to the voters
in the form of a voter referendum to overturn the City Council's decision.
The voter referendum passed, ending efforts to move forward with the
Airport improvement projects and rejecting FAA funding.
The passage of this voter referendum brought into question the long-term
viability of the Airport. These circumstances have left the Airport in a
state of uncertainty. Ambiguity about the future has discouraged private
investment at the Airport. Private investment and revenue generating
projects are needed in order for the Airport to be a viable, contributing
aviation facility.
4 21
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
FAA Funding Mechanisms and Obligations
Airport owners always have the option to maintain and fund projects
through local means, but most of the 3,345 public -use -airports contained
in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) accept some
amount of financial assistance from the FAA. The FAA has several different
mechanisms for funding airport improvement projects depending on
the type of project and the type of airport. For GA airports like Kalispell
City Airport, a majority of projects are funded through the Airport
Improvement Program (AIP). The AIP fund assists with capital projects/
expenses at eligible airports. In order to be eligible for AIP funds, an airport
must first be included in the NPIAS. The AIP is funded separately from the
FAA operating budget. The funds are generated from a variety of aviation
related fees such as aviation fuel taxes, commercial airline ticket fees, and
cargo shipment fees. Monies in the AIP are not funded through general
U.S. treasury funds. This is an important distinction that the FAA makes in
an effort to emphasizes that AIP funds originate, and remain in, the aviation
system.
As a condition for receiving AIP grants, the FAA has a series of grant
assurances or obligations that the Airport sponsor (owner) must abide by
for twenty years from receipt of funds. It is important to note that these
grant assurances do not currently applyto the Kalispell CityAirport because
it has not accepted federal funds. However, the FAA grant assurances
would apply in Alternative 3, or any variation of the project which includes
receipt of federal funds. Key grant assurances that pertain to the Airport
are summarized below. The full list of airport sponsor assurances can be
found on the FAA website at the following link:
http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant assurances/
Good Title.
It, a public agency or the Federal government, holds good title,
satisfactory to the Secretary, to the landing area of the Airport or site
thereof, or will give assurance satisfactory to the Secretary that good
title will be acquired.
Consideration of Local Interest.
It has given fair consideration to the interest of communities in or
near where the project may be located.
Consultation with Users.
In making a decision to undertake any airport development project
under Title 49, United States Code, it has undertaken reasonable
consultations with affected parties using the Airport at which project
is proposed.
Public Hearings.
In projects involving the location of an airport, an airport runway,
or a major runway extension, it has afforded the opportunity for
public hearings for the purpose of considering the economic, social,
and environmental effects of the Airport or runway location and its
consistency with goals and objectives of such planning as has been
carried out by the community and it shall, when requested by the
Secretary, submit a copy of the transcript of such hearings to the
Secretary. Further, for such projects, it has on its management board
either voting representation from the communities where the project
is located or has advised the communities that they have the right to
petition the Secretary concerning a proposed project.
Operation and Maintenance.
The airport and all facilities which are necessary to serve the
aeronautical users of the Airport, other than facilities owned or
controlled by the United States, shall be operated at all times in a
safe and serviceable condition and in accordance with the minimum
standards as may be required or prescribed by applicable Federal,
state and local agencies for maintenance and operation. It will not
cause or permit any activity or action thereon which would interfere
with its use for airport purposes. It will suitably operate and maintain
the Airport and all facilities thereon or connected therewith, with due
regard to climatic and flood conditions. Any proposal to temporarily
22 1
January 2016
close the Airport for non -aeronautical purposes must first be approved
by the Secretary (of transportation).
Hazard Removal and Mitigation.
It will take appropriate action to assure that such terminal airspace as
is required to protect instrument and visual operations to the Airport
(including established minimum flight altitudes) will be adequately
cleared and protected by removing, lowering, relocating, marking,
or lighting or otherwise mitigating existing airport hazards and by
preventing the establishment or creation of future airport hazards.
Compatible Land Use.
It will take appropriate action, to the extent reasonable, including
the adoption of zoning laws, to restrict the use of land adjacent to
or in the immediate vicinity of the Airport to activities and purposes
compatible with normal airport operations, including landing and
takeoff of aircraft. In addition, if the project is for noise compatibility
program implementation, it will not cause or permit any change in
land use, within its jurisdiction, that will reduce its compatibility, with
respect to the Airport, of the noise compatibility program measures
upon which Federal funds have been expended.
Exclusive Rights.
It will permit no exclusive right for the use of the Airport by any person
providing, or intending to provide, aeronautical services to the public..
Fee and Rental Structure.
It will maintain a fee and rental structure for the facilities and services
at the Airport which will make the Airport as self-sustaining as
possible under the circumstances existing at the particular airport,
taking into account such factors as the volume of traffic and economy
of collection.
Mead
&Alunt
Airport Revenues.
All revenues generated by the Airport and any local taxes on aviation
fuel established after December 30, 1987, will be expended by it for
the capital or operating costs of the Airport; the local airport system;
or other local facilities which are owned or operated by the owner
or operator of the Airport and which are directly and substantially
related to the actual air transportation of passengers or property; or
for noise mitigation purposes on or off the Airport.
Hangar Construction.
If the Airport owner or operator and a person who owns an aircraft
agree that a hangar is to be constructed at the Airport for the aircraft
at the aircraft owner's expense, the Airport owner or operator will
grant to the aircraft owner for the hangar a long term lease that is
subject to such terms and conditions on the hangar as the Airport
owner or operator may impose.
These grant assurances in effect create a more ridged management
structure and less flexibility for the City. They also protect the aviation
users' interest and any federal financial contribution. Contrary to some
public perception, the City would not"lose control"of the Airport. The City
must consider these grant assurances, and the twenty year encumbrances
when weighing options for the future of the Airport.
This first section of the report presented the relevant existing conditions
surrounding the Airport in an effort of preparing the reader with an
understanding of the Airport's circumstances. The following section of this
report outlines the aviation and financial implications of the alternatives
which arose from the public outreach sessions.
4 23
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
AIRPORT ALTERNATIVES
Introduction
Five high level concepts for the future of the Airport were considered and
further developed through February and March 2015 stakeholder and
public outreach meetings.
1. Keep the Airport as it is using City funding
2. Close the Airport
3. Request FAA funding for Airport in its current alignment
4. Incorporation into an Airport Authority
5. Privatize the Airport
This section provides an analysis of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 from a financial
impact perspective. Cost assumptions and sources are included asendnotes.
Where appropriate, alternatives use TIF funding to pay for development,
but not for operations and maintenance expenses. TIF funding availability
assumes $1.325 million available in 2016 and $415,000 of additional
funding available per year until the TIF sunsets in 2020. Unused TIF funds
are carried forward to subsequent years; however, when the TIF sunsets,
unused funds must be returned to taxing authorities. Recommendations
are provided for alternative implementation. A summary of the alternatives
and a discounted cash flow analysis are included at the end of this section.
Examples of GA airports in similar scenarios are included below to illustrate
the inherent difficulties of long term self-sufficient GA airport operations.
Hot Springs County —Thermopolis Municipal Airport - Wyoming
(THP): THP is a publicly owned GA airport. THP is operated and
maintained through a contract between the County and the local
Fixed Base Operator (FBO). The County pays the FBO annually and
the FBO is responsible for operations and daily maintenance. Airport
revenues (fuel sales, hangar leases) are retained by the FBO; therefor,
the County operates THP at an annual loss. As of 2015, the County
is planning for THP to be incorporated into the FAA NPIAS in order
to be eligible for FAA AIP funds. The long term plan for THP includes
using AIP funds for Airport relocation.
• Catalina Airport - California (AVX): AVX is a privately owned
public -use GA airport which does not receive AIP funding.The
runway is in severe disrepair and repair costs exceed available funds.
The owner is in the process of finding an eligible sponsor for the AVX
with the objective of qualifying for and receiving FAA funds.
• W. K. Kellog Airport - Michigan (BTL): BTL is a publicly owned GA
airport which uses a variety of funding sources. BTL uses AIP funds
for capital projects, and funds from the local Tax Increment Finance
(TIF) District to aid with the local match requirements. Although BTL
is not entirely self-sufficient and relies on AIP funds, the combination
of TIF funds and general funds support operational costs.
• Other private airports: Throughout the country there are many small
GA airports that are privately owned and funded by their owners.
Ownership can be a single entity or a consortium type partnership
with multiple owners. In most all of these scenarios the owners are
responsible for all funding requirements.
In the United States, the vast majority of GA airports are not entirely
self-sufficient. Most receive operating and capital funds from a variety
of sources including city, county, state and federal sources. The Kalispell
City Airport requires significant capital investment from outside sources
to pay for much needed improvements. Cash flow generated by airport
operations is not sufficient to pay for needed capital improvements.
Airport Financial History: As shown in Figure 15, the Airport operated at
an average net loss of $99,499 per year from 2010 to 2014. If depreciation
is not included, the Airport has had positive cash flow in 2010 and 2013
and operated at an average net loss of $124 from 2010 to 2014. Positive
cash flows were caused by irregular events (contract legal services expense
being lower in 2010 than in previous years and a one-time contribution
from a local government fund of $92,625 in 2013), not by normal revenues
exceeding expenses. It is recommended that the City not include
depreciation in financial analysis because depreciation represents the
decline in value of an asset that has already been paid for, and not a cash
expense paid by the Airport. This will present a more accurate picture of
operating expenses and revenues.
24 1
January 2016
Mead
&-flunt
Figure 15: Airport Financial History
• ..
Airport Revenue
86,622
90,566
88,940
169,752
79,303
103,037
Airport Expenses
176,702
214,636
217,616
225,974
177,751
202,536
Minus Depreciation
100,832
100,832
100,832
97,918
96,461
99,375
Net Profit (Loss)
(90,080)
(124,070)
(128,676)
(56,222)
(98,448)
(99,499)
Net Profit (Loss) w/o Depreciation
10,752
(23,238)
(27,844)
41,696
(1,987)
(124)
Figure 16: Baseline Financial Projections
Airport Cash Flow -1112015
==201
Revenue (+)
93,200
95,400
96,700
98,600
99,900
101,500
Operating Expenses (-) 179,195
185,300
188,300
194,200
202,400
214,300
Construction Expenses (-)
O
0
386,794
311,242
402,286
56,000
Less Depreciation (+)
Net Profit (Loss) w/o Depreciation
95,100
9,105
94,000
4,100
92,900
(385,494)
91,900
(314,942)
90,800
(413,986)
89,700
(79,100)
In order to assess airport development alternatives, a pro -forma financial
statement has been prepared for a baseline scenario. In this scenario,
the Airport continues to operate as it does today. Investment is limited
to needed maintenance and repair. Financial projections for the baseline
scenario are presented in Figure 16, and the airport capital improvement
plan is presented in Figure 17.
Construction expenses in Figure 16 are ineligible for TIF funding because
these expenses are considered maintenance of existing facilities, not
development of new facilities.
Figure 16 represents airport cash flows and expenses should the Airport
continue operating "as -is" Capital improvement costs beyond what can be
covered by airport revenues are paid for by the City of Kalispell. Operating
expenses and revenues are projected to grow over time based on trends
observed over the past five years.
Revenue growth is limited by the existing number of revenue -producing
properties on the Airport, and is expected to grow through lease rate
increases (e.g. increasing lease rates to reflect the true value on the
market). Expenses are expected to grow at nine percent per year, driven
by contracted labor and materials that support the capital improvement
program.
Tax Increment Finance Options: In July 1996 the City established a TIF
District for the South Kalispell/Airport District with a sunset date of July
1, 2020. The TIF District has an annual bond payment of approximately
$500,000 and generates approximately $631,000 in revenue per year. This
TIF District is one of two taxing jurisdictions availablefortheCitytouse asan
Airport funding source (the other being traditional property tax revenues).
There will be $1,325,000 in TIF funds in 2016, and an additional $415,000 in
TIF funds per year until 2020. TIF funds can be used for new construction
4 25
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
and actions that support development (e.g. buying out leases), but not to
cover maintenance or for operating expenses.TIF funds must be used prior
to the TIF sunset date in 2020.
[Figure 17: Existing Airport Capital Improvement Plan]
ImprovementCapital P.
Main Runway Overlay
372,000
Road and Parking Lot Crack Seal
14,794
West Taxiway Overlay
255,516
North Fuel Island Overlay
14,280
Main Hangar Taxiway Overlay
41,446
East Taxiway Overlay
362,167
Ryan Lane Overlay
40,119
Airport Road Overlay
56,000
Total
0
386,794
311,242
402,286
56,000
source: ury oT Kaiispeu
Alternative 1 — Keep Airport As -Is
Approximately three-quarters of the stakeholders, airport users and the public
responded with the desire to keep or expand the Airport. In Alternative 1,
necessary capital improvements are made, and available property is leased to
private developers with the intent of generating new revenue in support of
the long term viability of the Airport.
Alternative 1 requires similar capital investment as the baseline scenario.
Improvement projects are considered maintenance of existing facilities
and are therefore ineligible for TIF funds to pay for improvements. Without
FAA involvement, financial responsibility for capital projects, maintenance
activities, and operating costs that are not covered by airport revenues will fall
on the City. The City will rely on increased airport revenues to cover airport
costs. Several avenues exist for the City to implement capital projects that will
increase revenues.
• Invest now in much needed maintenance projects. This will send
a signal to the aviation community and prospective users, tenants
and business that the City is serious about the long term viable
operation of the Airport. The east and west taxiways are in need of
maintenance, which should be a high priority item for the City to
address.
Attract a developer for a new 18-unitT-hangar complex. Enter into
a lease agreement similar to the existing T-hangar lessees which
guarantees $500 a month per T-hangar building, or 1/2 of rents owed
to the developer. After a certain level of occupancy it is expected
that 1/2 of rents owed will exceed $500 a month, which explains the
increase in revenue from 2018 to 2019 and 2020. The City will not
develop hangars because of the cost, slow payback period, and
low rate of return (and potential loss), but instead continue to lease
property to private developers.
Identify areas on airport/city property for future development.
In order for additional users to relocate to the Airport, a land use
development plan needs to be in place. Areas for non -aviation uses
(e.g., industrial park, self -storage facility) should be located in areas
that are already separated from the airfield. Aviation related uses
(additional hangars, FBOs, and other aviation service providers)
should be located in areas with access to the airfield. Much of the
airfield area has been developed already; however, several areas of
infill exist. If the City chooses Alternative 1, a land use development
plan should be prepared for the development of surplus property.
As revenue increases, the City should consider undertaking projects to
bring the airfield into compliance with FAA standards, even if the Airport is
not obligated to do so by FAA grant assurances. Since this alternative would
not utilize FAA funds, no requirement would exist to comply with FAA grant
assurances. As a liability precaution, the City should also consider publishing a
continuous Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) specifying the areas which do not meet
FAA standards.
Capital expenditure and associated revenue projections are shown in Figure
18.Over time, new hangars come online and help provide additional income
for the Airport. Figure 18 includes capital expenses programmed by the City
of Kalispell, and additional capital expenses required to increase revenue,
such as maintaining airfield facilities in a condition that will attract private
investment. Figure 19 shows the resulting revenues and expenses associated
26 1
January 2016
with Alternative 1. Detailed revenue and expense projections are included in
Appendix A.
[Figure 18: Alternative 1 Capital Costs and Resulting Revenue]
I
Revenues
2016Alternative
0:
2019
2020
Total
T Hangar Ground Lease
0
0
6,000
13,200
23,760
42,960
Hangar Site Leases
1,200
4,120
8,760
11,840
15,000
40,920
Ground Leases
0
30,000
31,000
32,000
33,000
126,000
Main Runway Overlay
0
372,000
0
0
0
372,000
Road and Parking Lot Crack Seal
0
14,794
0
0
0
14,794
North Fuel Island Overlay
0
0
14,280
0
0
14,280
Main Hangar Taxiway Overlay
0
0
41,446
0
0
41,446
West Taxiway Overlay
0
0
255,516
0
0
255,516
Ryan Lane Overlay
0
0
0
40,119
0
40,119
East Taxiway Overlay
0
0
0
362,167
0
362,167
Airport Road Overlay
0
0
0
0
56,000
56,000
Revenues in Figure 18 represent new revenue only. A comprehensive revenue and expense pro forma is
included in AppendixA.
[Figure 19: Alternative 1 Revenue and Expense Summary]
2016
0:
2019
2020
Operating Revenues (+)
90,800
1 125,520
139,960
153,340
170,860
Operating Expenses (Except Depreciation) (-)
133,800
143,600
154,200
167,500
185,300
Capital Expenses (-)
0
386,794
311,242
402,286
56,000
Surplus (Shortfall)
(43,000)
(404,874)
(325,482)
(416,446)
(70,440)
Revenue assumptions are that 15 new hangar site leases (five 100'xl00' and
ten 60'x60' hangars) will come online between 2016 and 2020. The lease rates
assume $0.16 per square foot per year for 2016, then growing at 2.2% per year
in line with the U.S. rate of inflation forecast. The City will need to include such
escalation in new leases, and adjust existing leases when possible to reflect
true market value for the property. Absorption rate of the new development
areas will depend on market demand and the completion of other airport
improvement projects that will help grow developer confidence. Alternative 1
projections assume a total of two units will be built by 2016; a total of five will
be built by 2017; a total of nine will be built by 2018; a total of 12 will be built by
2019; and all 15 spaces will be built by 2020.
Mead
&-flunt
The 18 unit T-hanger building is expected to be in place by 2019 and revenue
projections assume the minimum of $500 a month ($6,000 a year) is paid to
the City in the first year while the developer markets the units to tenants. This
fee structure is identical to existing T-hangar building leases. If the developer is
successful in leasing more than five spaces, then the City will receive 1/2 of the
rent due per month in line with the other T-hangar lease agreements, which
will provide up to $23,760 a year in revenue at full hangar occupancy. Hangar
development in Alternative 1 represents a "maximum development" scenario,
where all available airport property is developed to produce revenue.
Additional Avenues for Increasina Airlaort Revenue:
"True -up" Existing Ground Lease Rates: The City should consider
bringing existing ground leases up to true market rates. This will
require additional analysis to determine the true market rate for the
ground leases. Depending on the ground lease structure, this may not
be possible for several of the sites for many years. As ground leases
expire or come up for renewal, the City should include an escalation
clause which allows lease rates to grow at the expected rate of
inflation (at a minimum).
To remain competitive with off -airport sites, the City could provide
"shovel ready" sites. "Shovel ready" generally means any environmental
work and field investigations have been completed and the project
is ready for design work. Sewer, water and power infrastructure are
generally available throughout the Airport property. These utilities
could be extended to specific project sites in advance in an effort
to encourage development. While this approach should incentivize
development, it comes at a cost to the City. These costs are not
included in the financial projections.
Consider establishing a newTIF District for the Airport beyond 2020.
Although this might be a less desirable action politically, it would
provide the City with a sustained source of revenue for the Airport.
Establishing a TIF District would be a significant undertaking, requiring
time and expense from the City.
4 27
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Available options but not recommended:
Establish landing fees and/or overnight tie -down fees. This could
discourage use at the Airport and drive aviation activity to other
airports. The following airports in Montana have established such
fees:
- Glasgow- $25/night single -engine, $50/night multi -engine
- Stevensville - $3/night single -engine, $5/night multi -engine
- No airports in Montana charge landing fees for non-commercial
GA aircraft.
An example of a busy GA airport which has additional fee structures is
Montgomery Field, San Diego, California:
- Overnight transient parking: $5/night for aircraft with a Maximum
Takeoff Weight (MTOW) of 10,000 Ibs or less, or $1 per 1,000 Ibs
for aircraft over 10,000 Ibs MTOW. For example, a Cessna 172 = $5/
night. A King Air 200 = $13/night.
- Landing Fees apply to all aircraft operating under a Part 135
certificate, regardless of how an individual flight is operated. $10
for aircraft 10,000 Ibs MTOW or less, or $1 per 1,000 Ibs for aircraft
over 10,000 Ibs MTOW. For example, a Cessna 421 = $10/landing.
A Citation Excel = $20/landing.
Fiscal Impacts: There would be immediate costs to the City for overdue
maintenance projects. Runways and taxiways are the main areas reported
by users as needing immediate attention. The City should adhere to their
Capital Improvement Plan forthe near -term high priority projects to enhance
tenant and user confidence, and facilitate capital planning. A detailed pro
forma, capital costs, and revenues and expenses are included in Appendix A.
When comparing cash flows from different time periods, it is critical to
account for the time -value of money. Due to changes in inflation and
purchasing power, the value of $1 in 2015 is more than it is in 2016, and
much more than it is in 2020. One way to look at it is that a good or service
that costs $1 today will cost $1.40 in 2020 dollars. The good or service does
not change, only the amount of money required to pay for it. Revenues and
expenses in the pro -forma statements are presented in the dollar values
for the years that they occur (e.g. 2017 revenues are in 2017 dollars, and
2020 revenues are in 2020 dollars), but when the costs and benefits of the
alternatives are compared to each other, all dollars are adjusted to present
value, which is 2015 dollars.
The present value adjustment uses the "discount rate" of 7% that the White
House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recommends for evaluating
long term financial performance of government -funded projects, which are
not subject to the same market risks and tax implications and private sector
investments. This discount rate accounts for inflation, changes in purchasing
power, and risk. With all dollar values having the same purchasing power,
expenditures and revenues occurring in different years or across many years
can be compared.
A discounted cash flow analysis (DCFA) for Alternative 1 provides insight on net
present value (NPV) of five year costs and revenues, and expected long-term
financial gain. The DCFA uses a 7% discount rate to bring future monies into
2015 dollars, and assumes that revenues will grow in pace with inflation at 2%
annually.The DCFA for Alternative 1 is presented in Appendix A.
Alternative 1 requires capital investment of $900,000 over the next five years,
which includes the capital projects in Figure 19, adjusted to present value at
a 7% discount rate. The Airport valued at negative $1.3 million after these
improvements are made (negative $1 million in cash flow over the five years,
and negative $300,000 in ongoing loss over the life of the Airport).This means
that the City will need to invest more money than the Airport is expected to
return. After improvements for Alternative 1 are complete, it is expected that
the Airport will provide economic benefit for the community by way of jobs
and local tax base, however, economic benefits are not reflected in airport
finances.
The DCFA assumes that the City of Kalispell will finance the initial $900,000
investment in pavement rehabilitation, and that the T-hangars and box
hangars will be built by a private developer. The City will receive rent from
the private developer for these newly developed hangars.
28 1
January 2016
Spending $900,000 to receive negative $1.3 million in value may not look like
a wise investment; however, cities do not operate like for -profit enterprises.
Many essential city functions, such as schools, emergency services, and
parks and recreation, do not generate profit.These services increase value of
private enterprises that use them, which comes back to the City in the form
Mead
&-flunt
Aviation Impacts: Alternative 1 is not the ideal scenario from an aeronautical
perspective because it does not comply with FAA design standards. The
Recommended Airport Plan in the 2012 Final Airport Master Plan was full
compliance with FAA standards. However, Alternative 1 is a reasonable
compromise given the history and political environment surrounding the
of tax and licensure revenue and quality of life and emergency preparedness. Airport. Alternative 1 does provide a way for the Airport to voluntarily meet
Jobs and economic output are generated through temporary construction FAA standards as funds are available by increasing revenue opportunities
jobs and long-term jobs on airport, and off -airport that use aviation as part
of their business or supply the aviation sector.
When compared to the baseline scenario which has no investment or
improvement beyond safety -critical items and ongoing maintenance,
Alternative 1 has a DCFA valuation that is $61,969 greater over the long-term.
The numbers are similar because the baseline scenario still requires
substantial maintenance over the next five years just to keep the Airport
operational.The Airport operates at a loss in both scenarios, but covers more
of its operating expenses in Alternative 1 after five years due to additional
lease revenue from private hangar sector development. Due to the high
level of assumptions involved in the DCFA valuation, there is little difference
between Alternative 1 and the baseline scenario. A comparison between
Alternative 1 and the baseline is presented in Figure 20.
[Figure 20: Alternative 1 Comparison to Baseline]
and encouraging private investment.
Community pacts: Alternative 1 keeps the Airport as the City's financial
responsibility. Although the community will continue to receive the economic
benefits from the presence of the Airport (e.g. jobs, spending within the
community, and taxes), the financial investment needed to maintain a safe
operating environment at the Airport is considerable. It is expected that the
City will need to support this investment with its general fund. Should the
City need to take money from other city departments, then the community
may have to wait longer for needed improvements in areas.
Findings for Alternative 1 - Keep Airport As -Is
Keeping the Airport open in an as -is configuration without seeking
external funding does not produce a profitable enterprise. Challenges to
producing sustained profit include limited property available for revenue
producing development due to the Airport being surrounded by roads,
other development, and aviation clear areas; limited ability to raise lease
rates due to competition from other airports nearby and existing leases;
and the costs associated with airfield maintenance. Across the country,
some GA airports have secured additional revenue by leasing available
property to non -aviation large -lot commercial development. Due to the
site constraints mentioned above, it is not expected that there is sufficient
property at S27 to support aviation development and large lot commercial;
therefore, the Airport will be dependent on aviation -related rents to offset
costs.
While the pro forma in Appendix A shows Alternative 1 with a loss
of $70,440 in 2020, this level of loss is largely dependent on private
investment generating additional lease revenue for the Airport. Without
4 29
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
this investment, or if it takes longer to materialize than planned, the loss will
likely be greater. From a capital investment perspective, Alternative 1 is less
expensive from a capital investment perspective than the Airport closure
option (Alternative 2), and more expensive than getting FAA involvement
and having to meet FAA standards (Alternative 3). Consideration must be
given to how the expenses will be paid, as capital projects in Alternative
2 and some capital projects in Alternative 3 are eligible for TIF funding,
whereas none of the capital projects in Alternative 1 are eligible for funding.
Although Alternative 3 is less expensive purely in terms of capital costs,
Alternative 3 will require a new planning effort, negotiation with the FAA,
and local politically wrangling. As financial conditions improve with future
aviation and non -aviation growth at the Airport, continuing to invest in the
airfield and meet FAA standards where practical will support the viability
of the Airport.
If the City chooses to move forward with Alternative 1, a publicity campaign
should immediately occur to make existing and prospective users, tenants,
and business aware of the City's dedication and plan for continued
operation of the Airport. The ability of an airport to obtain financial
self-sufficiency depends on increasing user confidence in the Airport and
attracting demand and revenue generating uses.
Alternative 1 — Action Plan
1. Invest in the east and west taxiway maintenance projects.
2. Hire a full-time Airport Manager.
3. Consider attracting private development for newT- and box hangar
projects.
4. Prepare a land use development plan for vacant airport lands.
5. Engage in a publicity campaign to provide information on how the
City plans to continue funding and maintaining the Airport.
6. As funds are available, strive to meet FAA standards even if not
required.
Alternative 2 — Close the Airport
Closing the Airport is an option that is available to the City, but it has the
possibility of being a complicated and costly alternative. Closure would
be made in the form of a distinct and deliberate action from the City. If
no action is taken by the City and the Airport continues to deteriorate to
the point where it is operationally deficient, the City may at some point
become liable for failure to maintain the pavement.
The following are the financial and aviation impacts associated with an
airport closure:
Lease Buyout: The following
section regarding lease contents,
implications to the City and the
lease summary table in Appendix
A, is included as planning level
information only and does not
constitute a legal analysis of the
leases. As the lease languages
read, lease buyout would be
required at "a point when the
City discontinues aviation
operations on the Kalispell
Airport site.'
Figure 21 and Figure 22 show
a strong increase in revenue in
2019 and 2020 as a result of the
The City currently has both ground
leases and building leases on the
Kalispell City Airport.
• In a ground lease, the tenant
leases the ground for a fixed term
and may build a structure at
their own cost. If these leases are
terminated early the City may be
responsible for paying the tenant
the unamortized portion of the
building cost.
• In a building lease, the tenant
leases a building owned by the
City.
land sale and TIF funding offsetting capital expenses. It is expected that the
City will have sold off interest in the property by 2020, and will not receive
future revenue, meaning that revenue and expenses beyond 2020 will
equal $0. Should the City choose to lease and not sell the property, the cash
flow will be much lower in 2019 and 2020; however, the City will continue
to receive revenue from the property into the future. In this scenario, the
City will also continue to incur expenses associated with upkeep.
Seven of the sixteen leases currently in effect at the Kalispell City Airport
30 1
January 2016
have clauses stating that if the City discontinues aviation operations at
the Airport, the lease shall terminate and the City shall pay the fair market
value at the existing usage of the improvements constructed on the site.
At least one lease has clauses requiring appraisal of the fair value of the
remaining term of the lease and payment of that amount to the lessee.
Others require the unamortized portion of the cost of the hangar to be
paid to the tenant. In order for the City to close the Airport and buyout
the existing leases, official appraisals would be required (in some cases
two appraisals) to determine the appropriate dollar amount. The City will
need to pay for property appraisal and lease buy-out. This option carries
a risk of litigation depending on the results of the appraisal. Note: the
cost of ground lease buyouts will decrease overtime as the lease term
nears expiration and building near the ends of their useful lives; however,
the buyout costs associated with hangars at fair market value will likely
increase due to inflation and general value increases.
Potential Impacts at KGPI: Relocation of users to KGPI in the event of
Kalispell City Airport's closure has been suggested at public meetings
by those in favor of closing the Airport. An important impact to consider
is the comingling of GA and air carrier aircraft. The mixing of small GA
aircraft with air carrier, and corporate jets is possible, but not necessarily
a desirable scenario. The FAA, airport operators and air traffic controllers
prefer to separate these two user groups when possible. Difference in sizes
and operating speeds of air carrier and small GA aircraft adds a level of
complexity to the Airport environment and the potential for airfield delays
as larger aircraft have to wait for smaller aircraft to clear the runways and
airspace. Currently, there is adequate capacity at KGPI to accommodate
additional general aviation activity.
The Flathead Municipal Airport Authority (FMAA) owns and operates
KGPI and two other GA airports where it can separate operations and
infrastructure requirements ofthe two different user classes of aircraft (small
GA and air carrier/business jet). A sudden influx of small GA aircraft into an
airport that is not prepared to accommodate their permanent relocation
could be problematic. Since hangars are not eligible for FAA AIP funds,
FMAA would be responsible for either paying directly for construction of
new hangars at KGPI or attracting investors to do so. Commercial service
Mead
&-flunt
airports like KGPI typically focus their efforts on commercial and business
aviation investment opportunities. Alternatively, the FMAA could choose
to do nothing about new hangar construction and plane owners would
need to go elsewhere for services outside of the City of Kalispell.
Fiscal Impacts: Costs associated with this alternative include immediate
costs of lease buyout and a loss of economic activity generated by Airport
businesses that choose not to relocate within the region. It should be
assumed that some of the reported jobs, payroll and total activity/output
would be lost with the Airport closure. This report does not attempt to
quantify that loss, nor does it quantify potential economic gain associated
with reuse of the Airport site.
A detailed five year pro -forma analysis, capital costs, and detailed revenues
and expenses of Alternative 2 are included in Appendix A.
A critical element that is missing from the Alternative 2 pro -forma is the
future revenue potential of the property. If the City chooses to re -purpose
the property for another civic use, there will be costs and revenue
implications. If the City sells the property and it is re -developed, there will
be taxes and jobs generated. Due to the unknowns about the future of
the property, the on -going revenue is listed as $0 to the City. In order to
accurately compare Alternative 2 to Alternatives 1 and 3, it is recommended
that more research be done on what the property could be re -purposed
for. Within this report two general options are depicted from a land use
perspective but no detailed analysis has been contemplated.
The DCFA for Alternative 2 uses the same 7% discount rate as Alternatives
1 and 3. What is different between Alternatives 1 and 3, and Alternative
2 is that the DCFA for Alternative 2 assumes no long-term income from
the property once it is sold. Depending on what the City does with the
property, it may become taxable. Tax revenue will depend on what types
of uses are built on the site. It is recommended that the City of Kalispell
develop an area plan for the site should Alternative 2 be pursued in order
to calculate the future tax revenue. The DCFA for Alternative 2 is presented
in Appendix A.
4 31
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
The NPV of the cash flows for Alternative 2 is $400,000, a positive result
largely due to TIF funding and proceeds from the sale of the property
offsetting the expense of the lease buy-outs. If the City chooses not to sell
the property it is recommended that the DCFA be re -run to better assess
long-term property tax income from the site.
The present value of capital projects and lease buy-outs associated with
Alternative 2 is $2.9 million in 2015 dollars at a 7% discount rate. There is a
negative return on investment because the City does not generate enough
revenue from the sale of the land to cover the costs associated with selling
it (even with the use of TIF funds); however, this loss could be smaller, or
even a net gain should the City be able to produce tax revenue from the
site over the long-term. If the site is converted to another civic use, then
proceeds from the land sale to cover some expenses in 2019 and 2020 if it
desires to use the TIF funds for other purposes.
As shown in Figure 23, Alternative 2 is $1.8 million less expensive to the
City than continuing to operate the Airport as -is in the long -run. However,
Alternative 2 requires $2 million more in upfront capital investment ($2.9
million in Alternative 2 compared to $900,000 in the baseline scenario).
The reason behind this is that the City can use TIF funds to cover closure
expenses in Alternative 2, and cannot use TIF funds in the baseline
scenario. As stated previously, the City could see a more positive return
with Alternative 2 if there was a plan to redevelop the property into a
revenue producing land use, through lease or property tax. Using TIF
funds for airport closure means that these funds will not be used for other
property tax income is not expected; however, there may be economic improvement projects in the South Kalispell area.
benefits associated with newjobs.
As shown in Figure 21 and Figure 22, Alternative 2 has high up -front
costs; however, if these costs are spread over time, there should be
sufficient TIF funding to cover buy outs. The opportunity cost here is that
this improvement alternative uses all available TIF funds, and it is possible
that the City may want to use TIF funds to pay for improvements in the
South Kalispell area that are not related to the Airport.The City can use the
[Figure 21: Alternative 2 Capital Costs and Resulting Revenues]
Revenue
2016Alternative
2
0:
2019
2020
Total
Property Sale
0
0
0 1
7,500t/,boo
1,775,000
TIF Funds
0
756,550
1,255,200
558,2502,985,000
Ground Lease Buy Out
0
279,800
223,800
447,600
1,119,000
Hangar Purchase
0
476,750
381,400
762,800
1,907,000Red
Eagle Buy Out
0
0
650,000
0
650,000 Yes
Pavement Demo
0
0
0
5,000
5,000 Yes
[Figure 22: Alternative 2 Revenue and Expense Summary]
2016
0:
2019
2020
Operating Revenues (+)
82,175
829,565
1,290,595
1,465,450
1,302,500
Operating Expenses (Except Depreciation) (-)
147,900
179,100
186,400
57,900
36,000
Capital Expenses (-)
0
756,550
1,255,200
1,215,400
453,850
Surplus (Shortfall)
(65,725)
(106,085)
(151,005)
192,150
812,650
[Figure 23: Alternative 2 Comparison to Baseline]
Aviation Impacts: This alternative is the least desirable of the three
alternatives from an aviation perspective. New airports are exceedingly
difficult and costly to site. It is expected that displaced aircraft would
relocate to other area airports.
Community Impacts: Alternative 2 removes the Airport which takes away a
transportation asset; however, there are other facilities in the area that can
support the displaced airport users. Given that there is surplus capacity
(in terms of runway capacity and developable land for aviation uses) at
other airports, removal of the Kalispell City Airport does not cause overly
negative impact the area's airport system.
Removal gives the City a chance to replace the Airport with a facility or
facilities that benefit the community in other ways, such as a school or a
32 1
park, or another civic facility. It also allows the City to develop the property
which produces short-term construction economic impacts, and longer
term industry economic impacts such as new jobs and increased tax base.
Findings for Alternative 2 - Airport Closure — Not recommended due to the
high cost of lease buyouts and negative aviation implications, in addition
to the loss of services and economic activity that would occur for the City
of Kalispell. Losing an access point for emergency medical transportation,
search and rescue operations, law enforcement operations, and other
emergency services would be a significant loss which is not quantifiable in
terms of City finances.
Alternative 2 — Action Plan
Should the City decide to move forward with Alternative 2, the following
steps should be taken:
1. Consult legal counsel on the best path forward for closure and lease
buyout.
2. Plan for a date, in the future, on which the City will no longer provide
for aviation operations.
3. Begin a conversation and dialogue with leaseholders on decision to
close and the date which closure will occur.
4. Begin lease appraisal process.
5. Conclude lease buyout process with legal counsel.
6. Advertise closure date and provide adequate time for users to
relocate.
7. Close the Airport and demolish the runway.
8. Sell or lease the property.
January 2016
Mead
&flunt
4 33
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Alternative 3 — FAA Compliant Airport in Current Runway Alignment
Another alternative suggested during the public outreach process was one
that would re-engage the FAA in the Airport's future. This proposal would
involve using FAA funding for improvement projects to bring the Airport
into compliance with FAA design standards. The Airport will remain in its
existing location, with the same runway configuration and alignment. The
feasibility and success of Alternative 3 depends on FAA willingness to fund
the necessary improvement projects. In the early stages of this project,
FAA staff at the Helena Airport District Office were contacted about the
possibility of re -involvement with the Kalispell City Airport. The FAA said
that it is still possible for the City to become eligible for and receive FAA
funds. A re -validation analysis and discussion would be required between
the City and the FAA but the possibility is not off the table. Alternative 3 will
implement the airfield development plan "Site 1 — Option D"from the 2012
Final Airport Master Plan Update. A graphic of the project components is
located at the end of this document. Project components included in the
2012 Final Airport Master Plan Update are as follows:
• Airport facilities constructed to Airport Reference Code (ARC)
B-1 design standards (60 feet runway width, 150 feet separation
between runway and taxiway, 25 feet wide taxiways).
• Runway reconstructed to its current length of 3,700 feet but could be
extended to a length of 4,300 feet.
• No shift or offset of runway centerline.
• No rotation, orientation remains 13/31.
• Requires the relocation of five hangars and three shops on Airport
property.
• Requires the full or partial acquisition of approximately 16 land
parcels (no residential).
Alternative 3 assumes that the City and FAA investment will make the
Airport an attractive location for private developers, which will increase
airport ground lease revenue. The City will not develop hangars because
of the cost, slow payback period, and low rate of return (and potential
loss), but instead continue to lease property to private developers as in
Alternative 1. It is expected that private
developers will have lower overhead
costs and be able to more efficiently and
flexibly manage leases, set lease rates,
and keep hangars full while returning a
profit.
Considering that Alternative 3 involves
FAA funds, there are political concerns
which are not as pronounced in
Alternatives 1 and 2. The City will have
to determine if accepting FAA funds (in
a more limited role than the previous
The Airport Reference Code (ARC)
has two components relating to
theAirport design aircraft. The first
component, depicted by a letter, is
the aircraft approach category
and relates to aircraft approach
speed (operational characteristic).
The second component, depicted
by a Roman numeral, is the
airplane design group and relates
to airplane wingspan or tail
height (physical characteristics),
whichever is the most restrictive.
Master Plan project) and operating in
accordance with FAA grant obligations
is something that would be acceptable to the public. The general public
voted against this approach in 2013; therefore, the City will need to provide
additional documentation that supports this approach.
Fiscal Impacts: Although 90% of this alternative would be funded through
FAA Airport Improvement Program grant funds, the City would still be
responsible for the "matching" 10%. Some of these funds could come
from the TIF (for development projects) while maintenance projects are
ineligible for TIF funding. Additional expenses would likely be incurred for
a coordination/planning effort (updated Airport Layout Plan) to determine
a course of action with FAA.
If the Airport becomes eligible for FAA funding, it will receive $150,000 per
year in FAA Entitlement Funds to support capital improvement projects.
The FAA will fund 90% of major future capital projects, such as a runway
reconstruction or overlay, with these entitlement funds, and will provide
additional "discretionary" funds when deemed appropriate and necessary.
Discretionaryfunds are only provided when available, and when entitlement
funds are fully used. Capital expenses are lower than Alternatives 1 and 2
because the FAA would fund the majority of capital projects 13. A five year
pro -forma analysis, capital costs, and detailed revenues and expenses are
included in Appendix A.
34 1
January 2016
A DCFA for Alternative 3 provides insight on NPV of five year costs and
revenues, and expected long-term financial gain. This DCFA uses the same
7% discount rate as Alternatives 1 and 2 and the same 2% growth rate of
positive cash flows as Alternative 1.The DCFA for Alternative 3 is presented
in Appendix A.
[Figure 24: Alternative 3 Capital Costs and Resulting Revenues]
Alternative 3
020 Total
T-Hangar Lease Revenue
0
0
6,000
13,200
23,760
42,960
Ha nga r Site Leases
1,200
4,120
8,760
11,840
15,000
40,920
Ground Leases
0
30,000
31,000
32,000
33,000
126,000
TIF Funds for Capital Projects
8,000
102,500
150,500
70,000
50,000
381,000
Update ALP
8,000
0
0
0
0
8,000 Yes
Land Purchase, Obstruction Removal
0
87,500
87,500
0
0
175,000 Yes
Environmental Permitting
0
15,000
15,000
0
0
30,000 Yes
Design
0
0
48,000
0
0
48,000 Yes
North Fuel Island Overlay
0
0
1,428
0
0
1,428
Main Hangar Taxiway Overlay
0
0
4,145
0
0
4,145 0
Airport Road Overlay
0
0
0
0
56,000
56,000 0
Road and Parking Lot Crack Seal
0
14,794
0
0
0
14,794 0
Ryan Lane Overlay
0
0
0
40,119
0
40,119 No
West Taxiway Overlay
0
0
25,552
0
0
25,552 No
Runway Rehabilitation
0
0
0
70,000
0
00,000 Yes
East Taxiway Reconstruction
0
0
0
0
50,000
50,000 Mikes
-p-,' x3 u.- u- cuyiu.c , , u1c uxcu - 1 u-ru - ulcu Lupl w w313. n u w uufcu ulut u.c
FAA will fund eligible improvements at 90%.
[Figure 25: Alternative 3 Revenue and Expense Summary]
3
2016Alternative
0:
2019 -=20
Operating Revenues (+)
98,800
228,020
290,460
223,340
220,860
Operating Expenses (Except Depreciation) ()
142,400
166,700
229,100
173,300
189,500
Capital Expenses (-)
102,294
118,624
110,119
106,000
Surplus (Shortfall)
(43,600)
(40,974)
(57,264)
(60,079)
(74,640)
As with Alternative 1, the long-term cash flows are highly variable
depending on what discount rate is used and future valuation is contingent
on private investment in hangars. Using the 7% discount rate for purposes
of comparison, Alternative 3 is valued at $400,000 in 2015 dollars (see
Figure 28).The NPV of construction investments is $400,000 in 2015 dollars;
and Alternative 3 produces an even return on investment.
Mead
&-flunt
[Figure 26: Alternative 3 Comparison to Baseline]
Alternative 3 repairs the airfield and maintains it similar to Alternative 1,
the major difference between these two alternatives is that the City must
bear more of the capital costs in Alternative 1 due to the absence of FAA
funding and because projects are ineligible forTIF funding. For this reason,
the scale of improvement projects is less in Alternative 1 than in Alternative
3. A comparison is presented in Appendix A.
Aviation Impacts: This alternative would provide the best outcome from
an aviation perspective. Anything that moves the Airport closer to full
compliance with FAA standards is beneficial.
Community pacts: Alternative 3 continues to provide the community
with an aviation facility, and takes advantage of FAA funding to reduce the
local share of improvement projects. Revenue -producing improvements,
including hangars, are not eligible for FAA funding; however, these
projects can be seen as an investment to make the Airport more financially
sustainable in the future, and most of the expense of building these facilities
will be borne by the private sector. Short-term community impacts include
construction jobs and material sales that support construction; and longer
term impacts include less reliance by the Airport on the City's general fund,
which frees up money for other City programs.
Findings for Alternative 3 - Request FAA funds for Airport Improvements
in Current Runway Alignment - If the City has the political willingness to
pursue Alternative 3, it would be the recommended course of action. The
City could choose to proceed with this alternative, and if an agreement
cannot be reached with the FAA, the City can revert to Alternative 1.
The downside of this approach would be the potential for more time to
pass without a clear direction for the Airport, and completion of high
priority maintenance projects.
4 35
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Alternative 3 — Action Plan
Should the City decide to move forward with Alternative 3, the following
steps should be taken:
1. City representatives organize and attend a meeting with FAA
representatives to discuss potential for project.
2. With FAA agreement, prepare an updated ALP and CIP.
3. Coordinate with FAA on timing on process moving forward.
Alternative 4 — Incorporation into an Airport Authority
There is a possibility that the Kalispell City Airport could be incorporated
into an airport authority. Airport authorities are independent, public
agencies created by state legislation. Many different forms of authorities
exist. Some have the power to levy taxes and the use of eminent domain,
and some do not. Airport authorities of some type make up approximately
39% of airport ownership structures nationwide.
Figure 27 presents generalized advantages and disadvantages of an
authority - exceptions exist in all cases.
The Flathead Municipal Airport Authority (FMAA) operates Glacier Park
International Airport and two GA airports (Ferndale and Whitefish). Some
comments at public outreach events asked what potential exists for the
[Figure 27: Airport Management Structure Comparison]
Authority
Municipality
• Provides focused leadership
Access to other city resources
Insulates elected officials
Power to tax & eminent
• Better serves a larger
domain
community
Issue bonds
Q
Provides a business focus
V
Money may not be available
Financial and political
to support the Airport
constraints
r�
Greater exposure to liability
Airport competes for
>
(need to purchase insurance)
attention/resources
• Leadership may not focus on
airport exclusively
Airport to join the FMAA, and what potential exists for creating a new
authority for the Airport and perhaps others nearby?
Inclusion of the Airport into the FMAA would require an agreement
between the City of Kalispell and the FMAA. Considering that the FMAA
already operates two GA facilities, it is unlikely that they would need to
acquire a third; however, there may be operational benefits and economies
of scale for the FMAA which increase interest. It is recommended that the
City approach the FMAA Board of Directors to discuss the practicality of
joining FMAA.
A second airport authority option is that the Kalispell City Airport forms
its own airport authority independent of the FMAA. This option would
increase costs in the short -run as additional airports or revenue generating
facilities would need to be acquired and a new taxation zone would need
to be established to support the new airport authority's operations. In the
absence of a tax, and without an airport with strong revenue generating
potential in the authority, it is unlikely that this option would be financially
advantageous to the City or the new airport authority. City legal council
should be consulted on the potential fortaxing authority if two independent
airport authorities existed within the same county.
If Kalispell City Airport was to be incorporated into the FMAA or other
authority, the City of Kalispell would likely lose control of decisions
regarding airport management, operations and finance. The City would
also lose potential revenue generated through airport improvements;
however, it would benefit from spill -over economic growth associated with
on -airport businesses.
Fiscal Impacts: Depending on the agreement made between the City and
the future Airport Authority, any sale proceeds would go to the City of
Kalispell.The new Airport Authority would then assume responsibilities for
financial obligations as well as collection of any revenue.
Due to the absence of facts about Alternative 4 costs and revenues, no
DCFA was performed. The City will need to do additional analysis before a
DCFA can be performed.
Findings for Alternative 4: Incorporation into an Airport Authority — If the
City chooses to explore the Airport Authority path, the City would need to
hold a meeting the FMAA on the topic to gauge interest and benefits for
both parties.
36 1
January 2016
Alternative 5 — Privatize the Airport
Within the contents of this study the airport is shown to lose money in
all of the primary three financial alternatives. If the City of Kalispell keeps
the airport as is, it continues to lose money. If the City takes FAA funding,
keeping the runway orientation in -place, it continues to lose money.
Based on the findings of this study, the City also loses money if the airport
is closed in the near future and is sold for alternative uses. For purposes
of this report, sale values for the airport property are $25,000/acre when
looking at the airport land on a gross sale basis.
Often municipalities and counties are faced with decisions of operational
shortfalls or looking to transfer services and even infrastructure to the
private sector. Across North America it is quite common for governmental
entities to privatize services and infrastructure of all types, including water,
sewer, sanitary and landfill services. Some toll roads are examples of
private or public -private partnerships in transportation. Over the past 25
years the federal government has privatized tens of thousands of acres of
land across the country in dozens of military base closure operations, many
of which include airports. In fact, if there is a service being provided by a
government entity it generally can be provided by the private sector as
well.
If the City of Kalispell wanted to explore the true value of the airport
property and set some conditions in its transfer of the land, the City could
establish and issue an airport acquisition request for proposal (RFP). From
a land development standpoint the airport does offer some attractive
conditions including readily available utilities and vehicular access, as
well as surrounding services. As previously stated, the existing airport
hangar leases and required buy-out pose confusing conditions for the next
many years. However, often the private sector can do things the public
sector cannot including negotiating lease buyouts for cash or non -cash
considerations in relation to a greater development. The old adage that
the private sector can move faster than the public sector is often, but not
always, true.
If the City chose to issue an acquisition RFP it could also choose to favorably
weigh continued use as an airport for a minimum number of years as a key
decision factor in any transfer of land. This would send the signal to the
private sector aviation industry to investigate a private sector operation
of the airport, as well as give time and possible initiative to the Flathead
Mead
&-flunt
Municipal Airport Authority to consider its options in acquiring and
operating the airport. The City would want to make its intentions clear
and give ample time for development, or groups entertaining the option
of continuing to operate the airport, traction to put together deals to
respond to the RFP.
Minimum elements the City will want to consider if it chooses this option
include the following:
• Conduct a true detailed real estate appraisal of airport property prior
to accepting RFP results,
• Set minimum return expectations,
• Establish a schedule for due diligence during the RFP (Minimum 180
days),
• If the airport is to continue to operate, is there a minimum time
frame for its operation (ie. 10 years) and minimum time frame to
bring airport up to FAA standards,
• If the airport is to be repurposed, a transition should identify holding
the City harmless for hanger lease termination occurring prior to
airport closure.
• Explore all available legal angles of privatizing city owned land.
Exploring a Privatization option is really a combination of the previous
four options as each of them could actually become a part of the results of
any RFP. The major issue herein is that the City of Kalispell gets out of the
General Aviation airport business. In privatizing, any scenario may come
forward including:
• Keeping the airport operating in its current configuration,
• Closing and repurposing the airport for other land uses,
• Utilizing FAA funds if the airport were to be acquired by another
governmental entity or airport authority,
• Acquisition by an existing or newly established airport authority.
If at the end of the RFP period the City is unhappy with the results of any
offers received, the council could move forward with any option it chose.
It would have a clearer understanding at that time of what the private or
quasi private sector thought of the value of the land as a viable airport or
alternative real estate development potential.
4 37
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
SUMMARY - COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives presented require investment from the City. Potential funding
sources include the FAA, the Montana Department of Transportation, the
TIF fund (for certain improvements) and the City's general fund. The City
could also issue a revenue bond or look for private investors. Regardless of
the funding source, the City will need to make an investment in the Airport
in order to generate additional revenues necessary to make the Airport
profitable. Without additional funding over the next five years the Airport
will continue to lose money and facilities will degrade to a point where
they may become inoperable. The same is true for the investment required
to close the Airport, as leases will need to be bought out and the property
will need to be redeveloped.
The alternatives presented above contain aeronautical, community, and
financial implications to the City.The aeronautical factors of the alternatives
[Figure 28: Alternative Summary]
are not quantifiable in the way that the economic factors are. Ultimately,
what alternative is best depends greatly on the community's vision for
the Airport. Alternative 3 costs the City the least out of pocket, but binds
them to continue to operate the Airport well into the future (potentially
at a loss). Alternative 1 gives the City greater flexibility to close the Airport
in the future should private development not arrive; however, this capital
costs for Alternative 1 are $900,000 compared to $400,000 for Alternative 3.
The capital costs associated with Alternative 2 are three times as expensive
as Alternative 1 and seven times as expensive as Alternative 3 over the
next five years; however, these expenses can be covered with TIF funds.
Alternative 2 provides the City with an opportunity to convert the Airport
to a land use that provides greater civic or economic benefit. Alternative 2
also frees the City of on -going airport maintenance beyond five years. Key
benefits and drawbacks of each alternative are summarized in Figure 30.
Alternative
5 Year Cash
Ongoing
DCFA
Benefits
Drawbacks
Capital Costs
Flows
Income
Valuation
• Provides safe, efficient airport
Does not meet FAA standards
Alternative 1
Greater flexibility if closure sought
City must self -fund future capital
$900,000
($1,000,000)
($300,000)
(1,300,000)
in long-term
improvements and maintenance
• City investment may inspire private
Not eligible for TIF funds
investment
• Ability to reuse site for potential
Considerable up -front financial
greater economic benefit
investment
• Potential for City to profit instead of
Loss of aviation facility and
Alternative 2
$400,000
$0
$400,000
operating facility at a loss
association emergency
$2,900,000
Other facilities in area to take
management / disaster relief
displaced users
benefits
• Able to use TIF funds
Many unknowns about future
revenue potential
• Provides safe, efficient airport
Loss of flexibility if closure sought in
• Lower capital costs due to FAA
long-term
funds
More substantial capital
Alternative 3
($200,000)
$400,000
$400,000
Ongoing FAA entitlement funding
improvements needed to meet FAA
$400,000
Able to use TIF funds for some
standards
projects
Contrary to voter decision
• City and FAA investment may
Airport will continue to lose money
inspire private investment
Note: Capital costs are factored into 5 Year Cash Flows, along with operating revenues and operating expenses.
DCFA Valuation = 5 Year Cash Flows + Ongoing Income
38 1
January 2016
Financial analysis was run for three of the five alternatives and the baseline
scenario. Financial considerations and ranking is based on return on
investment and what the investment provides the City and the surrounding
community. It is expected that revenue producing development in
Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 will be the similar in terms of leasable acres
and land use types (e.g. aviation development). Key differences between
Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 include the following.
• City cannot useTIF for project in Alternative 1, but can as part of local
match for some project in Alternative 3.
• City does not use FAA funds at all in Alternative 1
• FAA funds help lower capital costs in Alternative 3.
• Use of FAA funds requires compliance with FAA grant assurances in
Alternative 3.
• Improvement projects are more comprehensive in Alternative 3 (e.g.
runway reconstruction instead of rehabilitation in Alternative 1).
• Airport eligible for $150,000 a year for capital projects in Alternative 3.
Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 assume that the City will promote full
build -out of aviation property on the Airport to raise revenues and make
the Airport as financially self-sustaining as possible into the future.
[Figure 29: Baseline and Alternative Returns on Investment]
Net Present Value (2015 $, 7916' Rate)
WAlternativs..,
DCFA Valuation Capital Costs
Mead
&-flunt
Alternative 2 has higher capital costs than the other two but produces a
positive cash flow over the five years as TIF funds and proceeds from the
sale of land cover closure costs. Should the City sell and allow development
on the property, the tax revenue will improve the DCFA valuation and make
Alternative 2 more competitive than Alternative 3 from a DCFA perspective.
It is recommended that the City investigate what the development
potential is on this piece of property and whether the City can afford to
pay the closure fees and wait for years to be reimbursed through property
taxes. Alternative 2 has higher capital costs than the baseline "do nothing"
scenario, but the return on investment (through land sale and elimination
of ongoing airport maintenance costs) is more promising than continuing
to operate the Airport at a loss.
Of the three scenarios, Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 arrive at the same
valuation of $400,000; however, the capital costs are higher for Alternative
2, and the City is reliant on FAA funding for Alternative 3. The key difference
is whether the City wishes to keep the property as an airport or not. The
positive cash flow for Alternative 3 is highly contingent on the City leasing
available property. If this does not occur, or takes longer to occur, then
Alternative 3 will not be a profitable enterprise. Alternative 2 removes the
aviation asset, freeing the City from the expense of operating the Airport
but potentially eliminating associated economic benefit in the process.
4 39
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
ENDNOTES ASSUMPTIONS AND SOURCES
,. County data https:Hflathead.mt.gov/about_flathead_county/index.
php
z. Cash flow information provided by the City of Kalispell.
3. East Taxiway - Assumed cost of $38 per sq. yard of asphalt overlay
applied to an area of 8,000 sq. yards.
4. West Taxiway - Assumed cost of $38 per sq. yard of asphalt overlay
applied to an area of 5,078 sq. yards.
s. Estimated salary including benefits.
6. Hangar site lease revenue estimates based on $0.16/sq. ft. for ten (10)
60'x60' and five (5) 100'x100' box hangars with progressive ground
lease structures. Range in revenue reflects initial lease year and end
lease year.
7. Ground lease non -aviation revenue assumes $0.16/sq. ft. for a large
(180,000 sq. ft. leasehold) non -aviation related development on the
City owned compost site.
s. Assumes $1 million for site work/paving/utilities and $1.5 million for
buildings. Based on engineers planning level estimate. Results in 18
new t-hangars with lease rates of $500 per month.
9. Calculated based on remaining ground lease terms. Assumes initial
hangar construction costs of $130/sq. ft. See Lease Summary Table
for compiled lease information.
,o. $1.9m estimate brought forward from 2012 Airport Master Plan
estimates. Assumes fair market buyout of seven (7) hangar leases.
See Table 6-2 contained in 2012 Airport Master Plan.
,,. Estimate assumes 25% of the 2012 Airport Master Plan $2.6 million
buyout estimate for both Red Eagle and the Hilton lease. Inclusion
of the Hilton lease was incorrect and inflating that number.The 25%
estimate was based subtracting out the more expensive highway
frontage and more substantial investment in the Hilton property.
12. Demolition of runway assumes two days of work (16 hours) by two
pieces of heavy earthmoving equipment at $156/hr.
13. Assumes the FAA would be willing to negotiate and come to an
agreement on the future configuration of the Airport
14. Typical cost for ALP update
15. Alternative 3 cost assumptions brought forward from 2012 Airport
Master Plan
16. Obstruction removal refers to the relocation of five hangars and
three shops on airport property. Source 2012 Airport Master Plan.
17. Source: Airport Council International
40 1
is
MERGANSER DR
nm m _ r,y � •.
o ieww I
3
li RIVER GLEN Ci
BISON Dp
January 2016
Mead
&fIun } L
Figure 30: Existing Land Use Map
Existing Land Use
Residential ■ Government Facility
Commercial Professional Office or Health Care
. Mobile Home Park i Sewer Treatment Plant
Open Space .Industrial
.Airport, Golf Course, Fairgrounds
SOUTH KALISPELL URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT
South Kalispell/Airport Redevelopment Area I
Current Airport Tax Increment Finance District
City Limits Mead
&+lunt
o �3zo FT N
4 41
,nUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND STRATEGIES
LAND USE STRATEGIES
The goal of the South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan is to integrates ustainable,
socially responsible, and economically sound recommendations and
implementation strategies to improve the quality of life for residents of
Kalispell and the greater region.
Land use planning is a political and iterative process that needs to remain
flexible and open to changing conditions. Decisions made with active
participation, using a consensus building process, have a greater chance of
implementation and success.
This plan will incorporate smart growth policies such as promoting infill
development, mixed use development, protecting natural resources,
encouraging walkability, and redevelopment opportunities.
Existing land use in the South Kalispell Urban Renewal District include a
variety of commercial, industrial, mixed use, and residential properties, as
well a large amount of undeveloped open space (see Figure 25). One of the
major land holders in the Planning Area is the Kalispell City Airport, which
occupies approximately 10% of the larger 720-acre planning area.
Developing partnerships between public entities and private development
can maximize limited resources and provide for a more robust investment
opportunity and create a better outcome for the long term health of
the community. These agreements can also ensure a more consistent
development standard and pattern between cities and counties increasing
the levels of service for health, safety, fire, and general livability.
42 1
January 2016
DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
The following Development Guidelines are general policy statements that
inform land use decisions within the Urban Renewal District.
Attract the Right Type and Size of Development
A city can influence where and what kind of growth happens by pointing
out locations where public services and other environmental factors make
the most sense for new development. Once these locations are indicated
on a map, the City can make it easier to develop a project with various
incentives.
Provide the Highest Level of Public Services and Facilities
Growing without subsequently expanding public infrastructure impairs
the City's ability to provide a high level of public service to Kalispell's
taxpayers. Within their limits, the City should make decisions based upon
the impacts a project has on their ability to provide services such as water,
sewer, emergency services, roads and other customer services.
Attract High Quality Projects
Higher quality development can cost more, however low quality projects
become a burden on the City and its residents over time. The City can only
afford to move forward by approving and building the best projects the
market will bear.
Promote a Transportation Network that is Safe for Pedestrians, Bikes,
and Vehicles
Increased traffic volumes related to urban development have raised
significant concerns about vehicular and pedestrian safety. Public officials
and agencies should strive to provide a network of streets that are safe and
accessible for all modes of travel, and where possible, implement urban
design elements that encourage reduced speeds in high traffic areas.
A South Kalispell for Everyone
Kalispell is home to people of all means, but across the region rising costs
of services, goods and housing is driving out long-time residents and
preventing new residents from moving to town. Supporting development
that provides affordable housing and a mix of uses and services should be
a priority in the Urban Renewal District.
A Sustainable South Kalispell
A sustainable city is one that is structured to survive a potential bust, and
one that considers impacts to the environment as it grows. Economic
growth in the region will one day stop, and the City can prepare by making
sustainable fiscal and land use decisions now. The City must institute
careful planning to avoid overbuilding or overextending infrastructure.
Supporting environmentally -sensitive development is also a priority.
Encouraging builders to use locally -sourced materials is an example of
sustainable development that saves on transportation costs and supports
local businesses.
4 43
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Promote a Family -Oriented Community
Families have and will continue to move into South Kalispell because of
the existing family -oriented character. Ensuring there are resources that
support the health, safety, convenience and livelihoods of families young
and old will improve the quality of life for all area residents. Neighborhood
amenities, such as local businesses, parks, community activity centers
(churches, schools or clubs), grocery stores and banks, for example, build a
strong family -friendly community.
Keep the Small Town Character
Part of the attraction of living in Kalispell is the small town character, which
is derived from the rural lifestyle, close-knit and friendly neighbors and
_ -- -
quiet neighborhoods. Within the commercial area of town, a welcoming,
pedestrian -scaled environment with local businesses and slow traffic
speeds contributes to the unhurried, small town atmosphere.
i+
Keep South Kalispell Beautiful
7
Sweeping vistas, plentiful natural open space and local culture all contribute
to South Kalispell's beauty. Maintaining these elements for future
F
generations to enjoy is a goal that requires tremendous foresight on the
if
DIN
part of local leaders. Enacting policies that preserve open space and views,
f L 16 HTrRA I H-10
and require native, drought -tolerant plantings that are appropriate for this
region will help achieve this goal. Also, encouraging new construction that
SC EN I CS ......
is compatible with the town's historic fabric is a great example of how local
Chi A R TE R-
character contributes to a beautiful city.
c 0 u N
is
W,
44 1
January 2016
IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND OPPORTUNITY
SITES
The following list describes some examples of high-level projects intended
to implement the long-term redevelopment vision expressed in this
plan. Specific capital projects are categorized into broader improvement
categories.
These projects are reflective of a series of capital projects that the city might
implement unilaterally and in conjunction with private development
interests to strengthen the urban fabric of South Kalispell.
Figure 31: Improvements Projects and Opportunity Sites Table
Improvement Projects or Opportunity Sites Acres Ownership
1. Cemetery Road Project 5 Public
2. New Elementary School 25 School District 5
3. Dog Park 2 to 5 1 Private Owner
4.
Community Park
15
1 Private Owner
5.
Highway 93 Trail Expansion
—
Public Right -of -Way
6.
"Welcome to Kalispell" Sign
—
Public Right -of -Way
7.
Highway 93 Business Park
7.5
City of Kalispell, 1 Private Owner
8.
Aviation Business Park
3
Whitefish Credit Union
9.
Park-N-Ride/Traill head
4.4
MT Dept. of Transportation
10.
Relocate City Shops for Mixed -Use Development
4.9
City of Kalispell
4 45
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
1 Cemetery Rd Project
2 New Elementary School
3 Dog Park
4 Community Park
5 HWY 93 Trail Expansion
6 Welcome to Kalispell Sign
7 Business Park
8 Aviation Business Park
9 Park- N-Ride/Trailhead
10 Mixed -Use Development
City of Kalispell
South Kalispell Urban Renewal District
o ` 118 114 112 Mile TN
Figure 32: Improvements Projects and Opportunity Sites Map
January 2016
Improvement 1. Improve Cemetery Road from Airport Road to Highway 93
Currently constructed to county road profiles, Cemetery Road is more and
more undersized forthe increasing amount oftraffic. While not in the confines
of this study, we recommend a Traffic Study be conducted for Cemetery
Road to determine current traffic counts and projected traffic counts due to
the new school programmed at Airport Road north of Cemetery Road.
Even without an increase in expected traffic volume, the current roadway
is in substandard shape for a major east -west corridor bordering the
Figure 33: Cemetery Rood Improvement Concept
&KE PAN
l�MEVARD
OURS 6 Gu7'TER
4rASPHALT
O CRU6HED UA`R
IV SELCC7 SUBAtSE
C ASPmALT
VCRL&HO aASE
southern boundary of the Airport. The roadway is narrow and lacks
adequate shoulders and pedestrian and bicycle separation. Specifically,
there needs to be a new bridge or major pipe arch over the Ashley Creek.
The current culvert is undersized and increases the potential for flooding
upstream of the crossing.
With the eventual addition of an elementary school on the south west side
of the Urban Renewal District, additional vehicle and pedestrian traffic will
be evident along Cemetery Road.
Err SELECT 803-&4 ?E
6r CftlJSi1ED BASE SHO &Mlt
a e ■ w
RURAL STREET
i �
� VIL }
MINOR ARTERIAL �pos` CEMETERY ROAD SECTIONS
CUE 19'• i' 8` ; SOL.ITH KALISPELL URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT
KALL5PELL. MOWAr4A
4 47
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Improvement 2. New Elementary School
The Kalispell School District has purchased land along Airport Road directly
south of the City's wastewater treatment plant. This plan does not propose
to develop the new elementary school, but rather intends to proactively
identify potential opportunities and challenges, with the assumption that
the new school will be constructed within a five-year period.
Figure 34: New Elementary School Concept
J
The school district will plan and develop the new school. Figure 29 depicts
how a proposed school might fit in the site. Specific concerns include
setback of the school from Airport Road and enabling a sense of arrival to
the school. Significant components to the site plan include a perimeter road
around the school with accessibility to future residential development areas
to the south and east.
0 Main Entrance
0 Parking Area
0 Pick-up/DropoffArea
0� Patio
V Play Area
Future Road Connection
Gravel Access Road
Football Field
Soccer Field
Junior Soccer Field
JKA NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0 100,200' 400'
SOUTH KALISPELL URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT
KALISPELL, MONTANA NORTH REF SCALE: 1" = 200'
January 2016
Improvement 3. Dog Park
Perhaps one of the most positively discussed recommendations during
the course of the public outreach process was the concept of a dog park
located within the South Kalispell Urban Renewal District. Dog parks can
be an incredibly utilized public gathering space where adults, children,
and dogs can recreate.
This environment requires thoughtful planning around regulations for
public health and welfare. Dog parks should be fenced and should require
Figure 35: Dog Park Concept
it
verification of current veterinary records and licensing. It is also common
for an entry fee to be utilized for a dog park that would include a card
reader access pass for entry.
In the proposed location shown in Figure 30 the dog park is part of
the proposed community park. A future cost estimate can be found in
Appendix B.
C
DOG PARK
SOUTH KALISPELL URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT
KALISPELL, MONTANA
0 62.5125' 250'
�4
1��
NQRTH REF
4 49
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Improvement 4. Community Park
As part of the overall Urban Renewal District a 15 to 30 acre community Studies show that community revitalization can happen when cities invest
park is recommended. Possible locations include a 15-acre parcel south of in parks. Community engagement, economic development, tourism, and
Cemetery Road and west of Highway 93. This community park will offer green infrastructure are just a few of the benefits of a healthy community
an opportunity to relocate Begg Park and provide a large open space park system. Detailed cost estimates can be found in Appendix B.
recreational park with various opportunities for diverse uses such as disc
golf, adult exercise classes, painting classes, community gardens, and
family or community gatherings.
Figure 36: Community Park Concept
L
Community Center
Y '
Splash Park
NW
Pavillion
r VolleyballNr
TT 1 r Horseshoes Playground
_' •- ` i Parking
•�` . rip
" _ _ ,� k}"'T.4 • �l Covered Basketball Courts
?'�+ Tennis Courts
it 4-"kor.
Picnic Area
} M1 rI 1 �_ Event Lawn 1 [Amphitheater
. J - Football Field
- t .. .: • Dog Park
Event Lawn 2
Soccor Field
* . + Pond
Maintenance
Skate Park
F •' * I,�+
Trail
'k a "• Entry/Signage
�I I Future Road
ti�4 . Y •
Bey r .` -
.odss
COMMUNITY PARK 0 125' 250' 500'
* SOUTH KALISPELL URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT
KALISPELL, MONTANA 14QRTH REF SCALE: 1" = 250'
January 2016
Improvement 5. Highway 93 Trail Expansion
As new development occurs along the east side of Highway 93, there is an
opportunity to construct a bike tail bordering the property. While slowly
this trail linkage is taking shape, it is too slowto be useful, leaving large gaps
of unconstructed trail. Recommended as part of the South Kalispell Urban
Renewal District Plan is to create a'bridge the gap'wholesale development
of a bike trail, uniting the district along its most visible corridor.
Figure 37: Trail Expansion Concept
The city is encouraged to approach Montana Department of Transportation
(MDT) to help facilitate the trail system along the right-of-way. As
currently envisioned, the bike trail could be equally split between MDT,
the City of Kalispell, and private funding sources. The trail construction is
approximately 1.5 miles in length connecting it to the northern part of the
City's street system. Detailed cost estimates can be found in Appendix B.
HVNY 9a r ARiES 12'-0" 1
ASPHALT TPAIL AV
THROUGH -CONNECTION OF HWY 93 TRAIL SYSTEM
SCALE; Iff . 1' -{P
Hal Y 93 TRAIL SYSTEM
* SOUTH KALISPELL URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT
K4k$PELL, MONTANA
4 51
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Improvement & Welcome to Kalispell
Located at the intersection of Highway 93 and the Highway 93 Bypass, on
the east side of the highway, is a proposed location for an official Welcome
to Kalispell entry monument. This feature must make a statement that you
are entering the City of Kalispell. As one ofthe more straightforward projects
to be proposed in the Plan, this feature will provide visitors to Kalispell firm
acknowledgement that they have arrived. City entry monuments are a
traditional means to identify a city's location and character.
Figure 38: Welcome to Kalispell Sign Concept
In 2013 the City undertook a Way Finding Project to develop a common
city entrance sign and way finding plan that would tie the various sectors
of Kalispell together under one unifying vision. The effort included an
extensive public outreach process with the end result being the Welcome
to Kalispell sign as seen in Figure 33. Also included was way finding
signage for identifying the historic downtown district, museums, Kidsports
Complex, parks, and other public facilities.
52 1
January 2016
Improvement 7. Highway 93 Business Park
The predominant land use in the South Kalispell Urban Renewal District
is a mixture of light industrial and commercial. The majority of the light
industrial is individually developed along Highway 93 and as a whole is
somewhat random. Still the opportunity exists to create a catalyst project
south of Cemetery Road on the west side of Highway 93 fora business park
featuring a combination of light industrial and commercial developments.
A Business Park featuring development opportunities such as can be
developed in phases and become a catalyst for new development types in
the renewal district.
N
0
Figure 39: Highway 93 Business Park Design Example
4 53
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Figure 40: Highway 93 Business Park Concept
9
HWY 93 BUSINESS PARK
SOUTH KALISPELL URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT
KALISPELL, MONTANA
VOL
--TTrt
Q Commercial - 16,400 SF
Commercial - 15,700 SF
Light Industrial - 11,200 SF
Light Industrial - 15,600 SF
Light Industrial - 6,400 SF I
Light Industrial - 10,500 SF
Future Road
Entry Feature
Parking Area
Commercial - 32, 100 SF
Light Industrial - 45,700 SF
Total Parking Spaces - 284
�1
i
Q $AF 117b 200
NQR41 REF SCALE: 1" = 1C9
January 2016
Improvement 8. Aviation Business Park
Should the City elect to keep or expand the General Aviation airport, ancillary The example shown in Figure 36 doubles as an enhanced entry to the
development compatible with zoning and aviation uses could greatly Airport capitalizing on a new entry sign and better definition to — and
improve the sustainability of the Airport. Given the location of the Airport identification of — the Airport.
and the existing infrastructure at the Airport (roads, electrical service, gas,
water, sewer, fiber optic), the investment for an Aviation Business Park could Should the Airport remain, a concerted effort should be made to embrace
be highly marketable. These highly flexible warehouse and office space can the Airport as a part of the South Kalispell urban fabric. The location of
provide technologically advanced turnkey business opportunities. the site is in a privately -owned tract of land south of the Hilton Hotel and
bordering Highway 93.
Figure 41: Aviation Business Park Concept
00.
ti - Aviation Repair
r �'i' '•" � Airport Operations
-- • Red Eagle Aviation
r • j Kalispell City Airport
T� ti yi Hilton Garden Inn
F _ Lion Park
Rosauers Food & Drug
' t 4ri Parking Area
• ` ' L Entry Portal
�t {T Aviation Repair- 9,000 SF
y - Airport Operations - 10,000 SF
y ` Total Parking Spaces - 162
P.
AVIATION BUSINESS PARK i
SOUTH KALISPELL URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT
KALISPELL, MONTANA HRiH IiEF SCgL�= y• = 1'
/ 55
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Improvement 9. Park-N-Ride Trailhead
Located off the US Highway 93 Bypass directly south of the Urban Renewal
District, a roughly 4.4 acre MDT -owned parcel has potential to be used
for a trailhead and to provide needed parking for recreational uses. Being
adjacent to Ashley Creekand the regional bicycle trail, this site has potential
for various recreational and open space activities should MDT choose
to develop or transfer the land. Detailed cost estimates can be found in
Appendix B.
Figure 42: Park-N-Ride Trailhead Concept
PARKING i PgVII!QN
PARK 'N' RICHE TRAILHEAQ
+ SOUTH KALISPELL URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT
KALISPELL. MONTANA
r A5ML.EY CREEK
�_ t1R?JL tHIJGN
YOU PAW
r '
I
I
Lt
69
56 1
January 2016
Improvement 10. Relocate City Shops for Mixed -Use Development
The City of Kalispell Shops are located on an approximately 4.9 acre site A new 1 st Avenue Commercial District development (Figure 39) could also
located on 1 st Avenue West adjacent to Legends Stadium. Relocating the potentially provide evening and weekend parking for the stadium, which
shops to other city -owned land on the Airport property would provide currently has no parking.
a strategic site for new mixed use development. The value of a land sale
could aid in relocation costs.
Figure 43 : Relocated City Shop Complex Concept
4
0
ter'
A M
1
RELOCATED CITY SHOP COMPLEX
SOUTH KALISPELL URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT
KALISPELL, MONTANA
City Offices
City Shop
City Garage
Storage Yard
Parking Area
City Vehicle Parking
Kalispell City Airport
Murdoch's Ranch & Home Supply
City Offices - 15,000 SF
City Strop - 8,000 SF
City Garage - 14,000 SF
Total Parking Spaces - 121
Q $AF ip(F 200
NQRTH F" SCALE. 1' = ICO
4 57
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Figure 44: 7stAve Commercial District Concept
1st AVE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
* SOUTH KALISPELL URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT
KALISPELL, MONTANA
imi
Q
Live/Work - 12,000 SF
Live/Work - 8,700 SF
4
Live/Work- 11,400 SF
Live/Work - 10,500 SF
Live/Work - 6,200 SF
Live/Wok - 4,400 SF
QLegends
Stadium
Northwest Ballet School & Co
Cattlemcn's Bar & Casino
4
Parking Area
#
Live/Work - 53,200 SF
Total Parking Spaces - 197
tZ �
Q � y`
61 7.1.6
t�
0 50' 1 Cc 201}
NQF[7Fi REF SCALE: 1' = 100'
58 1
January 2016
AIRPORT REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY
Redevelopment of the Airport property is an alternative the City needs to
consider if the decision is made not to continue airport operations.
Historical planning efforts have mainlyfocused on keeping and maintaining
the Airport. These comprehensive plans have laid out deficiencies and
improvements required along with the necessary capital required to
complete these improvements, but very little planning effort has been
spent on what potential redevelopment options could happen at the
Airport and what the possibilities might look like.
Over the last several decades, extensive development has occurred in and
around the Airport reflecting a mixture of land use and zoning such as
government facilities, commercial, residential, open space, and industrial.
Redevelopment could occur using a number of these development
options.
The South Kalispell Airport TIF encompasses a total of 230 acres of which
the Airport is approximately 71 acres. In perspective to the entire SKURD
planning area of 720 acres, the Airport represents about 10% of the overall
planning area. Kalispell City Airport is part of this TIF District and as such
has been the beneficiary of some of the TIF funds. Some of these funds
have been used to reinvest in Airport infrastructure and maintenance.
The airport property has extensive infrastructure available for
redevelopment purposes including:sewer,water,fiber optic, gas, telephone,
and underground power. With a heavy investment in infrastructure already
in place, developers may find this property as having a built in incentive
and ripe for redevelopment.
Through the public outreach process community comments included
creating an anchor for the South Kalispell area that would help spur
additional economic interest and development.
Preliminary discussions with Flathead Valley Fairgrounds staff identified
limited expansion opportunities at the current fairground location. As
additional growth and changing demands of the community occur, there
may be a need for future fairground space. Recognizing that County
Commissioners have made a concerted effort to reinvest in existing
fairground facilities, and recognizing the difficulty in replacing the existing
level of infrastructure, one option for future expansion may be the use
of a portion of the redeveloped airport property to support ancillary
fairground uses. Current City zoning supports this land use at this location,
however, this opportunity would require a significant effort on the City's
and County's part to work together to meet these larger regional goals.
Figure 40 shows a redevelopment option that includes a new High School
as well as County Fairground Facility.
Another alternative the City could consider for repurposing the Airport is to
convert the property to private land use. The land use plan shown on Figure
41 depicts a possible land -use alternative that includes: light industrial
on the southernmost portion of the Airport, transitioning to mixed use
and multifamily moving north. An investment of a new commercial
collector roadway with cul-de-sacs has been identified within the central
north -south core of the west taxi way and provides a central spine access
through the site, as well as enhances the development opportunity of the
new repurposed airport.
If the City chooses to sell the Airport property and allow for redevelopment
the City would begin to realize additional tax revenue as the property
developed. Redevelopment of this property would create additional jobs
and would spur additional economic activity throughout South Kalispell
by becoming a destination location. The increase in additional traffic
would benefit existing businesses within the urban renewal area, however,
the City would need to plan for increased demand on City utilities such
as water, sewer, storm water and roadways. A traffic study would be
needed to assist with the future development of this area so that careful
consideration and planning are done regarding accessibility, walkability,
connectivity, infrastructure, and design.
Moreover, with the redevelopment option, the City would not have the
continued financial commitment of labor, operation and maintenance
costs, and capital reinvestment costs associated with the Airport.
4 59
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Figure45: Land Use Alternative 1 for Airport Closure
Legend
Relvoated Fairgrounds
Kalispell South High School
ICI
Relocated City Shap Buildings
Paridrg
Baseball/Fvatball
Primary Vehicular Circulation
U.S. HighvayN
LANDUSE ALTERNATIVE 1 FOR AIRPORT CLOSURE
SOUTH KALISPELL URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT
KALISPELL, MONTANA
!Appw--
Iternative 1
:airgrounds
Kalispell South High School
Relocated City Shops
Parking
Recreational Ball Fields
Developable Area
8.6 Acres
9.2 Acres
1.8 Acres
28.4 Acres
10.2 Acres
60 1
January 2016
Figure 46: Land Use Alternative 2 for Airport Closure
Legen
Mueiramily Re id—tml
Mixed U- Com—d l l R-a
Light IrMustrial
Relocated City Shoe Building:
Pdmary Vehicular Circulation
US. Highway 93
LANDUSE ALTERNATIVE 2 FOR AIRPORT CLOSURE
SOUTH KALISPELL URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT
KALISPELL, MONTANA
4 61
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
[Figure 47: Concept for a New T-Hangar Complex]
j 18 "T Unit Hangers
j Asphalt Apron
Kalispell City Airport
AIRPORT HANGERS
a SOUTH KALISPELL URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT
KALISPELL, MONTANA
January 2016
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
South Kalispell is the beneficiary of one of the City's Tax Increment
Finance Districts (TIF's). The Kalispell City Airport/Athletic Complex and
Redevelopment Plan Analysis was originally adopted by Ordinance No.
1242 in July, 1996 setting the basis for the subsequent approval of a Tax
Increment Financing District. Subsequently, Ordinance No. 1260 amended
Ordinance 1242 and established January 1, 1996 as the base year for the
TIF. The primary goals associated with the original 1996 Urban Renewal
Plan and use of TIF monies still remain intact.
Specific goals include:
• Minimize hazards to navigation
• Develop the Airport in accordance with an airport layout plan
• Increase development opportunities on nearby properties
• Promote compatible land use in and around the Airport
• Establish funding mechanisms for airport operations
• Establish a priority schedule for plan implementation
Since the adoption of the 1996 Urban Renewal Plan and TIF, several of the
above goals have been addressed.
Resolution 4978 proposed to use tax increment finance district monies
in the amount of $1,900,000 for capital projects at the Airport using tax
increment urban renewal bonds.
These improvements included: purchase of land and improvements
currently owned by Red Eagle Aviation; construction of the northwest
ramp and taxiways; construction of the northwest utilities; construction
of an internal vehicle access road; purchase and installation of automatic
vehicle security gate. These projects were referred to as Phase I of the
Airport Master Plan.
Tax Increment Financing Projects
Ordinance No. 1541 in 2005, authorized a $2,000,000 urban renewal
revenue bond for the Airport projects listed in Resolution 4978 providing a
funding mechanism to complete the projects.
Resolution No. 5602 adopted in 2012 authorized the purchase of a
permanent easement and a 40 year lease on State of Montana School Trust
Lands annexing the land in to the City and allowing for the relocation of
youth athletic fields in the amount of $2,260,496.00.
Minimizing Hazards to Navigation
Ordinance No. 1745 adopted in October of 2014, focused on addressing
many of the navigational safety issues, including the establishment of
airport land use zones, height restrictions, airport runway protection zones,
use restrictions, administrative procedures, airport influence notification
zones, and enforcement.
In conjunction with Ordinance No. 1745, the City completed and adopted
a 2012 Master Plan for the Airport that included an Airport Layout Plan
and a variety of alternatives for FAA and Non -FAA compliance upgrades.
The failed referendum in 2013 precluded the City from accepting FAA
funding to bring the Airport into full FAA B2 Standard requirements and
subsequently has left the Airport again with an undecided future.
The current TIF expires July 1, 2020. It is recommended that the City look
into a new and expanded TIF district within the larger South Kalispell Urban
Renewal Area as a mechanism for future funding.
4 63
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
NCREASING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
OPPORTUNITIES
There has been an increase in development opportunities since the
adoption of the 1996 Urban Renewal Plan. The relocation of the ball fields
to KidsSports Complex allowed for the redevelopment of some of the
Airport's commercial properties.
Figure 48: 1990 and 2015 Aerial Imagery
Land developed between 1990 and 2015
New development opportunities have included commercial development
such as Murdochs, Hilton Garden Inn, Rosauers, and Penco. Located
directly on Highway 93 these improvements can spur additional economic
development within the planning area.
64 1
January 2016
FINANCING METHODS
Funding for capital improvement projects has always been a complex and
competitive process. Needs always exceed available funds and priorities
must be set. It is important that the City leverage its funding using
creative grants, funding leverage, and public/private partnerships to help
implement the capital improvement projects in the Plan. The projects
listed in the Plan have been identified as the higher priority projects
supported by prior planning documents, growth policies, public input,
and best management planning practices. The goal of the project list is to
help spur economic development using smart growth planning policies
thereby increasing the livability of the community.
Tax Increment Financing
Tax Increment Financing Districts Title 7, Chapter 15, Parts 42 and 43,
Montana Code Annotated (MCA), are a way for government agencies to
collect revenue and facilitate needed improvements within a specifically
designated area. The Montana Urban Renewal Law requires the project
to be in an area of blight and that the urban renewal project is done in
conjunction with an urban renewal plan. Improving social welfare, public
safety, and public health by reinvesting into urban renewal projects are key
components in creating a successfulTIF District.TIFD's are 15 yearfinancing
tools and can be leveraged with revenue bond financing.
http://www.leci.mt.ciov/bills/mca toc/7 15.htm
Industrial Development Bonds
Industrial Development Bonds (IDB's), Title 90, Chapter 5, Part 1 MCA
provide an additional financing tool, although, not as commonly applied
and TIFD's. IBD's can promote industrial development without an undue
burden to the tax payer.
http://www.leci.mt.ciov/bills/mca toc/90 5.htm
General Obligation Bonds
General Obligation Bonds,Title 7, Chapter 15 Parts 4301 &4302 MCA.These
bonds can be issued for water and sewer projects as well as urban renewal
projects and require voter approval.
http://www.leci.mt.clov/bills/mca toc/7 15 43.htm
Private Financing
Private Financing can contribute significant capital infrastructure
improvements as properties develop. The'growth pays for growth' policy
allows Cities to require new development to mitigate impacts to schools,
transportation systems, water, wastewater services, and environmental
impacts. Creating a consistent city standard for development within the
Urban Planning Area will provide opportunities as new properties develop.
Public/Private Partnerships
Public/Private Partnerships are another innovative way to leverage capital
reinvestment dollars. Developer agreements between public entities and
private development to upgrade, or further improvements can benefit
both the economy and the livability of the community.
State of Montana
Montana State Community Transportation Enhancement Grant is another
area of capital funding that is designed to increase multi -modal transpor-
tation methods and community walkability.
http://www.citiesthatwork.com/mdt/mi/ftools.shtml
Community Development Block Grants
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), administered by the
State of Montana, can be of assistance for communities that are focusing
improvements to benefit low to moderate incomes, create jobs, prevent
blight, redevelopment opportunities, and/or create newjobs. CDBG funds
again are best utilized in an urban renewal area and can be combined in
conjunction with other funding tools.
http://comdev.mt.gov/CDBG/cdbgpIanninggrants.mcpx
4 65
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Federal Grant Administration
Federal grants can sometimes be leveraged with state grants and local
funds. Federal grants come with a number of grant assurances that
can make the application and administration of the grants somewhat
cumbersome but do provide a variety of opportunities for improvements.
Brownfield redevelopment, transportation, bike/pedestrian trail facilities
are good applications for federal granting sources.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is a funding source for general
aviation airports. The FAA funds airports throughout the state to assist
with keeping them in compliance with FAA safety regulations and
standards. General aviation airports are also able to receive annual Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) funding to assist with a programmed capital
improvement list.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office org/headquarters offices/ato/service units/
acquisition/grants/?CFID=160792860&CFTOKEN=d322f3d7710aa530-53B06F86-
B9A5-BBAB-6E4CB7E06DAD7752&isessionid=97F925109B87911252DD761738
F7DBBA.www
US Department of Agriculture offers rural business opportunity grant
program, rural economic development loan and grant and community
facilities grants.
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=GRANTS LOANS
US Department of Commerce invest in Strong Cities, Strong Communities
Visioning Challenge as well as planning and local technical assistance
programs.
http://search.commerce.gov/search?querLgrants&affiliate=commerce.
qov&s u bm it.x=0&su b m it.y=0
The US Environmental Protection Agency supports the Brownsfields
Assessment Program; Brownfield Economic Development Initiative;
Brownfields and Lands Revitalization; building blocks for sustain
communities; smart growth technical assistance programs.
http://www.epa.ciov/brownfields/
US Department of Health and Human Services offers the Community
Transportation Grants — Small Communities Program.
http://www.hhs.ciov/cirants/index.html
US Department of Housing and Urban Development assists with integrated
planning and investment planning grants.
http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/department-of-housing-and-urban-
development.shtml
Local Funding
Local Funding is always a mechanism to complete capital improvement
projects. Local funding can be generated through impact fees, tax increment
financing districts, resort and local option taxes, urban transportation
districts, parking benefit districts, and transportation utility fees. Local
funding is commonly used more for match requirements of other funding
agencies (grant sources) versus fully funding capital projects.
City/County Partnerships
City/County partnerships via Inter -Local Agreements are sometimes
used for capital projects that may cross jurisdictional boundaries or have
significant benefit or impact to each agency. Partnerships can include
water/wastewater utilities, transportation, bike/pedestrian projects, as
well as others.
66 1
January 2016
BROWNFIELDS
The term Brownfield Site applies to real property that maybe compromised
and unable to develop due to the perceived or real presence of a hazardous
substance, pollutant, or contaminant. If eligible, federal funding may be
available to conduct an environmental assessment which identifies the
contaminant and extent of contamination on these sites.
The City of Kalispell has been proactive in creating a successful Brownfields
program and in the past has been awarded Brownfield funding for
community wide assessments and clean up. There are potential properties
within South Kalispell that may benefit from this program. The City is
a willing partner in this process and can work with concerned property
owners or developers that may be interested in this program. Reinvesting in
Brownfield properties is another way to spur economic vitality. Developers
are more interested in reinvestment and community members are more
apt to spend their time and resources within an area that has been
redeveloped with Brownfield dollars. TIFD funding can also be utilized to
leverage Brownfield development projects.
Figure 49. Starbucks Brown fields Project
- During construction
It is recommended that the City encourage Brownfield applications
within the South Kalispell Urban Renewal District and encourage the use
of TIF funding as an opportunity for Brownfield reinvestment projects.
The site below in Figure 43, formerly a service station and a parking lot,
was redeveloped into a Starbucks near the Kalispell Center Mall using
Brownfield redevelopment funds.
WWI
")UTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
APPENDIX A
AIRPORT ALTERNATIVES DETAILED FINANCIALTABLES AND PRO-FORMAS
Alternative 1 Pro Forma
Revenues
Comercial Fees
Tie Down Fees
Hangar Leases
Hangar Site Leases
FBO Lease
Ground Leases
Fuel Tax
FAA Airport Improvement Program
Contribution from Local Gov. Fund
Investment Earnings
Misc. Earnings
Expenses
Salaries - Full Time
Salaries - Seasonal
Health Insurance
Retirement
Travel, Dues, and Training
Office Supplies
Electricity
Telephone
Equipment Rental
CS-Labor+Materials
CS -Snow
CS -Legal
Equipment Mantenance
Property Insurance
Maintenance by Public Works
Administrative Transfer
Data ProcessingTransfer
Depreciation
Construction -In -Progress
Net Revenue (Loss) - Accounting
Net Revenue (Loss) - Cash Flow
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
$
13,400
1%
14%
$ 14,800
10%
16%
$ 16,300
100/0 13%
$ 18,000
10%
13%
$ 19,800
10%
13%
$ 21,800 10%
13%
$
600
-22%
1 %
$ 800
33%
1 %
$ 800
0%
1 %
$ 800
0%
1 %
$ 800
0%
1 %
$ 800 0%
0%
$
12,000
4%
13%
$ 11,600
-3%
13%
$ 11,500
-1%
9%
$ 17,600
53%
13%
$ 24,700
40%
16%
$ 35,260 43%
21%
$
24,100
38%
26%
$ 18,800
-22%
21%
$ 21,420
14% 17%
$ 26,360
23%
19%
$ 29,140
11%
19%
$ 32,300 11%
190/
$
17,900
0%
19%
$ 18,300
2%
20%
$ 18,600
2% 15%
$ 18,900
2%
14%
$ 19,200
2%
13%
$ 19,600 2%
11%
$
16,600
37%
18%
$ 17,000
2%
199/b
$ 47,400
179% 38%
$ 48,800
3%
35%
$ 50,200
3%
33%
$ 51,600 3%
30%
$
4,800
-15%
5%
$ 5,700
19%
6%
$ 5,700
0%
5%
$ 5,700
0%
4%
$ 5,700
0%
40/
$ 5,700 0%
3%
$
-
0%
0%
$ -
0%
0%
$ -
0%
0%
$ -
0%
0%
$ -
0%
0%
$ -
0%
0%
$
-
0%
0%
$ -
0%
0%
$ -
0%
0%
$ -
0%
0%
$ -
0%
0°/
$ -
0%
0%
$
900
39%
1%
$ 900
0%
1 °/
$ 900
0%
1%
$ 900
0%
1%
$ 900
0%
1 °/
$ 900 0%
1%
$
2,900
0%
3%
$ 2,900
0%
3%
$ 2,900
0%
2°/
$ 2,900
0%
2%
$ 2,900
0%
2%
$ 2,900 0%
2%
$
-
-100%
0%
$ 55,000
0%
24%
$ 56,000
2%
9%
$ 57,000
2%
10%
$ 58,000
2%
9%
$ 59,000 2%
18%
$
1,600
50%
1%
$ 1,700
6%
1%
$ 1,800
6%
0%
$ 2,000
11%
0%
$ 2,200
10%
0%
$ 2,500 14%
1%
$
-
-100%
0%
$ 10,000
0%
4%
$ 12,500
25%
2%
$ 15,600
25%
3%
$ 19,500
25%
3%
$ 24,400 25%
7%
$
-100%
0%
$ 4,000
0%
2%
$ 4,500
13%
1%
$ 5,000
11%
1%
$ 5,500
10%
1%
$ 6,200 13%
2%
$
-100%
0%
$ 800
0%
0%
$ 800
0%
0%
$ 800
0%
0%
$ 800
0%
0°/
$ 900 13%
0%
$
-100%
0%
$ 500
0%
0%
$ 1,300
160%
0%
$ 1,400
8%
0%
$ 1,600
14%
0%
$ 1,800 13%
1%
$
1,900
3%
1%
$ 2,100
11%
1%
$ 2,300
100/0
0%
$ 2,500
9%
0%
$ 2,700
8%
0%
$ 3,000 11%
1%
$
-
-100%
0%
$ 800
0%
0%
$ 800
0%
0%
$ 800
0%
0%
$ 800
0%
0°/
$ 800 0%
0%
$
800
-46%
0%
$ 1,800
125%
1%
$ 1,900
6%
0%
$ 2,100
11%
0%
$ 2,400
14%
0%
$ 2,700 13%
1%
$
36,000
89%
20%
$ 8,500
-76%
4%
$ 9,000
6%
1%
$ 9,800
9%
2%
$ 10,800
10%
2°/
$ 12,200 13%
40/
$
5,395
6%
3%
$ 5,500
2%
2%
$ 5,800
5%
1%
$ 6,300
9%
1%
$ 7,000
11%
1%
$ 7,900 13%
2%
$
21,300
526%
12%
$ 21,700
2%
10%
$ 22,800
5%
4%
$ 24,600
8%
40/
$ 27,000
10%
40/
$ 30,300 12%
9%
$
1,500
434%
1%
$ 7,900
427%
3%
$ 8,300
5%
1%
$ 9,000
8%
2%
$ 9,900
10%
1%
$ 11,100 12%
3%
$
8,600
-31%
5%
$ 6,700
-22%
3%
$ 7,100
6%
1%
$ 7,700
8%
1%
$ 8,500
10%
1%
$ 9,600 13%
3%
$
-
0%
0%
$ -
0%
0%
$ -
0%
0%
$ -
0%
0%
$ -
0%
0%
$ -
0%
0%
$
1,500
-65%
1%
$ 3,000
100%
1%
$ 2,900
-3%
0%
$ 2,300
-21%
0%
$ 1,800
-22%
0%
$ 1,500 -17%
0%
$
5,500
51%
3%
$ 3,800
-31%
2%
$ 5,800
53%
1%
$ 7,300
26%
1%
$ 9,000
23%
1%
$ 11,400 27%
3%
$
95,100
-1%
53%
$ 94,000
-1%
41%
$ 91,900
-2% 15%
$ 91,900
0%
16%
$ 90,800
-1%
14%
$ 85,700 -6%
26%
$
-
0%
0%
'$ -
0%
0%
$ 386,794
0% 62%
$ 311,242
-20%
56%
$ 402,286
29%
61%
$ 56,000 -86%
17%
000
00
-.a
Operating Revenues (+)
93,200
90,800
125,520
139,960
153,340
170,860
Operating Expenses (Except Depreciation) (-)
84,095
133,800
143,600
154,200
167,500
185,300
Capital Expenses (-)
0
0
386,794
311,242
402,286
56,000
Surplus (Shortfall)
9,105
(43,000)
(404,874)
(325,482)
(416,446)
(70,440)
January 2016
Alternative 2 Pro Forma
Revenues
Comercial Fees
Tie Down Fees
Hangar Leases
Hangar Site Leases
FBO Lease
Ground Leases
Fuel Tax
FAA Airport Improvement Program
Contribution from Local Gov. Fund
Investment Earnings
Misc. Earnings
Expenses
Salaries- Full Time
Salaries - Seasonal
Health Insurance
Retirement
Travel
Dues and Training
Office Supplies
Electricity
Telephone
Equipment Rental
CS-Labor+Materials
CS -Snow
CS -Legal
Equipment Mantenance
Property Insurance
Maintenance by Public Works
Administrative Transfer
Data Processing Transfer
Depreciation
Construction -In -Progress
Closure Costs
Net Revenue (Loss) - Accounting
Net Revenue (Loss) - Cash Flow
2015
1
2016
1
2017
1
2018
1
2019
1
2020
00
A %
of Rev
$ 8Z175
A
% of Rev
$ 829,565
A
% of Rev
$ 1,290,59500
A
$ 13,400
1%
14%
$ 14,800
10%
18%
$ 16,300
101/b
2%
$ 17,900
10%
I
$ 19,700
10%
10/
$
-100%
0%
$ 600
-22%
10/
$ 450
-25%
1%
$ 330
-27%
0%
$ 90
-73%
Oo
$ -
-100%
0
$
0%
0%
$ 12,000
4%
13%
$ 9,000
-25%
11%
$ 6,600
-27%
1%
$ 1,800
-73%
Oo
$
-100%
0
$
0%
0%
$ 24,100
38%
26%
$ 18,075
-25%
22%
$ 13,255
-27%
2%
$ 3,615
-73%
Oo
$
-100%
0
$
0%
0%
$ 17,900
0%
191/b
$ 17,900
0%
22%
$ 17,900
0%
2%
$ -
-100%
Oo
$
0%
0
$
0%
0%
$ 16,600
37%
18%
$ 12,450
-25%
15%
$ 9,130
-27%
1%
$ 2,490
-73%
Oo
$
-100%
0
$
0%
0%
$ 4,800
-15%
5%
$ 5,700
19%
7%
$ 5,700
0%
1%
$ 5,700
0%
Oo
$
-100%
0
$
0%
0%
$ -
0%
0%
$ -
0%
0%
$ -
0%
0%
$ -
0%
Oo
$
0%
0
$
0%
0%
$ -
0%
0%
$ -
0%
0%
$ -
0%
0%
$ -
0%
Oo
$
0%
0
$
0%
0%
$ 900
39%
1 %
$ 900
0%
1 %
$ 900
0%
0%
$ 900
0%
Oo
$
-100%
0
$
0%
0%
$ 2,900
0%
3
$ 2,900
0%
4%
$ 759,450
26088%
92%
$ 1,258,100
66%
97%
$ 1,445,750
15%
99%
$1,30Z500
-10%
100%
•00
00
A
%ofExp
$ 1,364,100
$ -
-100%
0%
$ 45,000
0%
191/b
$ 46,000
2%
4%
$ 47,000
2%
3%
-100%
0%
0%
0%
$ 1,600
501/b
1%
$ 1,700
6%
1%
$ 1,800
6%
0%
$ 2,000
11%
0
$ -
-100%
0
$ -
0%
0%
$ -
-100%
0%
$ 8,200
0%
3%
$ 10,300
26%
1%
$ 12,900
25%
1
$
-100%
0
$
0%
0%
$
-100%
0%
$ 3,300
0%
1%
$ 3,700
12%
0%
$ 4,100
11%
0
$
-100%
0
$
0%
0%
$
0%
0%
$ -
0%
0%
$ -
0%
0%
$ -
0%
0%
$
0%
0
$
0%
0%
$
-100%
0%
$ -
0%
0%
$ -
0%
0%
$ -
0%
0%
$
0%
0
$
0%
0%
$
-100%
0%
$ 500
0%
0%
$ 800
60%
0%
$ 400
-50%
0%
$
-100%
0
$
0%
0%
$ 1,900
3%
1%
$ 2,100
11%
1%
$ 2,300
10%
0%
$ 2,500
9%
0%
$
-100%
0
$
0%
0%
$ -
-100%
0%
$ 800
0%
0%
$ 800
0%
0%
$ 800
0%
Oo
$
-100%
0
$
0%
0%
$ 800
-46%
0%
$ 1,800
125%
1%
$ 1,500
-17%
0%
$ 1,000
-33%
Oo
$ 400
-60%
0
$
-100%
0%
$ 36,000
89%
201/b
$ 36,600
2%
15%
$ 29,700
-19%
3%
$ 18,300
-38%
10
$ 5,800
-68%
0
$
-100%
0%
$ 5,395
6%
3%
$ 5,500
2%
2%
$ 4,500
-18%
0%
$ 2,800
-38%
Oo
$ -
-100%
0
$
0%
0%
$ 21,300
526%
12%
$ 21,700
2%
9%
$ 28,700
32%
3%
$ 34,500
20%
20
$ 31,100
-10%
2
$ 28,000
-10%
6%
$ 1,500
434%
1%
$ 7,900
427%
3%
$ 6,400
-19%
1%
$ 5,500
-14%
Oo
$ 4,200
-24%
0
$ -
-100%
0%
$ 8,600
-31%
5%
$ 6,700
-22%
3%
$ 6,900
3%
1%
$ 7,500
9%
0
$ 7,500
0%
1
$
-100%
0%
$ -
0%
0%
$ -
0%
0%
$ -
0%
0%
$ -
0%
0
$ -
0%
0
$
0%
0%
$ 1,500
-65%
1%
$ 2,700
80%
1%
$ 19,100
607%
2%
$ 21,200
11%
1
$ 7,400
-65%
1
$ 6,600
-11%
1%
$ 5,500
51%
3%
$ 3,400
-38%
1%
$ 16,600
388%
2%
$ 25,900
56%
2
$ 1,500
-94%
0
$ 1,400
-7%
0%
$ 95,100
-1%
53%
$ 94,000
-1%
39%
$ 92,900
-1%
9%
$ 91,900
-1%
6
$ 90,800
-1%
7
$ -
-100%
0%
$ -
0%
0%
$
0%
0%
$ -
0%
0%
$ -
0%
Oo
$ 5,000
0%
0
$ -
-100%
0%
$ -
0%
0%
$
0%
0%
$ 756,550
0%
74%
$ 1,255,200
66%
82%
$ 1,210,400
-4%
89%
$ 453,850
-63%
93%
•0
0.
00
Alternative
2015
20161
I S
2019
2020
Operating Revenues (+)
93,200
82,175
829,565
1,290,595
1,465,450
1,302,500
Operating Expenses (Except Depreciation) (-)
84,095
147,900
179,100
186,400
57,900
36,000
Capital Expenses (-)
0
0
756,550
1,255,200
1,215,400
453,850
Surplus (Shortfall)
9,105
(65,725)
(106,085)
(151,005)
192,150
812,650
4 69
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Alternative 3 Pro Forma
Revenues
Comercial Fees
Tie Down Fees
Hangar Leases
Hangar Site Leases
FBO Lease
Ground Leases
Fuel Tax
Contribution from Local/Federal Gov. Fund
Investment Earnings
Misc. Earnings
Expenses
Salaries- Full Time
Salaries - Seasonal
Health Insurance
Retirement
Travel, Dues, and Training
Office Supplies
Electricity
Telephone
Equipment Rental
CS-Labor4Materlals
CS -Snow
CS -Legal
Equipment Mantenance
Property Insurance
Maintenance by Public Works
Administrative Transfer
Data Processing Transfer
Depreciation
Constructi on -I n-Progress
Acquisition Costs
Net Revenue (Loss) - Accounting
Net Revenue (Loss) - Cash Flow
2015
1
2016
1
2017
1
2018
1
2019
1
2020
S 13,400
1%
14%
S 14,800
100/b
15%
S 16,300
100/o
7%
S 18,000
100/8
6%
S 19,800
100/o
9%
S 21,800
100/o
100/o
S 600
-22%
1%
S 800
33%
1%
S 800
00/a
0°/
S 800
0%
0%
S 800
0%
0%
S 800
0%
0%
S 12,000
4%
13%
S 11,600
-3%
12%
S 11,500
-1%
5%
S 17,600
53%
6%
S 24,700
40%
110/
S 35,260
43%
16%
S 24,100
38%
260/
S 18,800
-22%
190/
S 21,420
14%
90/
S 26,360
23%
90/a
S 29,140
11%
13%
S 32,300
11%
15%
S 17,900
0%
190/
S 18,300
2%
190/
S 18,6W
2%
80/
S 18,900
2%
7%
S 19,200
2%
90/
S 19,6W
2%
9%
S 16,6W
37%
180/
S 17,000
2%
17%
S 47,400
179%
21%
S 48,800
3%
17%
S 5Q200
3%
22%
S 51,600
3%
23%
S 4,800
-15%
5%
S 5,700
19%
60/
S 5,700
0%
2%
S 5,700
0%
2%
S 5,700
0%
3%
S 5,700
0%
3%
S -
0%
0%
0%
00/
S -
0%
00/
S -
0%
0%
S -
0%
00/
S -
0%
0%
S 900
39%
1%
S 900
0%
1%
S 900
0%
00/
S 900
0%
0%
S 900
0%
00/
S 900
0%
00/
S 2,900
0%
3%
S 10,900
276%
11%
S 105,400
867%
460/
S 153,400
46%
53%
S 72,900
-52%
33%
S 52,900
-27%
24%
00'
of
60:
' of
,
' of
00
'
of
$ -
-100%
00%S
55,000
0%
23%
S 56,000
2%
160/
$ 57,000
2%
13%
S 58,000
2%
15%
S 59,000
2%
177
$ 1,600
50%
1%
$ 1,700
6%
1%
$ 1,800
6%
0%
$ 2,000
11%
00/a
$ 2,200
100/b
1%
$ 2,500
14%
1%
$ -
-100%
00/
$ 10,000
0%
4%
$ 12,500
25%
3%
$ 15,600
25%
4%
$ 19,500
25%
5%
$ 24,400
25%
6%
$
-100%
00/
$ 4,000
0%
2%
$ 4,500
13%
1%
$ 5,000
11%
1%
$ 5,500
100/b
1%
$ 6,200
13%
2%
S
-100%
00/
S 800
0%
0%
S 800
0%
0%
S 800
0%
0%
S 800
0%
00/
S 900
13%
0%
S
-100%
00/
S 600
0%
0%
S 2,300
283%
1%
S 3,000
30%
1%
S 2,300
-23%
1%
S 2,300
0%
1%
S 1,900
3%
1%
S 2,100
11%
1%
S 2,300
100/b
1%
S 2,500
9%
1%
S 2,700
8%
1%
S 3,000
11%
1%
S -
-100%
00/
S 800
0%
00/
S 800
0%
0%
S 800
0%
0%
S 800
0%
00/
S 800
0%
00/a
$ 800
-46%
0%
$ 1,800
125%
1%
$ 1,900
6%
1%
$ 2,100
11%
0%
$ 2,400
14%
1%
$ 2,700
13%
1%
S 36,000
89%
200/
S 16,500
-54%
7%
S 24,000
45%
7%
S 72,800
203%
17%
S IQ800
-85%
3%
S 12,200
13%
3%
S 5,395
6%
3%
S 5,500
2%
2%
S 5,800
5%
2%
S 6,300
9%
1%
S 7,000
11%
2%
S 7,900
13%
2%
S 21,300
526%
12%
S 21,700
2%
90/
S 22,800
5%
60/
S 24,600
8%
60/
S 27,000
100/b
7%
S 3Q300
12%
8%
S 1,500
434%
1%
S 7,900
427%
3%
S 8,300
5%
2%
S 9,000
8%
2%
S 9,900
100/b
3%
S 11,100
12%
3%
S 8,6W
-31%
5%
S 6,700
-22%
3%
S 7,100
6%
2%
S 7,700
8%
2%
S 8,500
100/b
2%
S 9,6W
13%
3%
S -
0%
00/
S -
0%
00/
S -
0%
00/
S -
0%
00/
S -
0%
00/
S -
0%
0%
S 1,500
-65%
1%
S 3,200
113%
1%
S 5,300
66%
1%
S 4,800
-9%
1%
S 2,700
-44%
1%
S 1,900
-30%
0%
S 5,500
51%
3%
S 4,100
-25%
2%
S 1Q500
156%
3%
S 15,100
44%
3%
S 13,200
-13%
40/a
S 14,700
11%
4%
S 95,100
-1%
53%
S 94,000
-1%
400/
S 91,900
-2%
25%
S 91,900
0%
21%
S 90,800
-1%
240/
S 85,700
-6%
22%
$ -
0%
00/
$ -
0%
0%
$ 14,794
0%
4%
S 31,124
110%
7%
$ 11 Q 119
254%
290/
$ 106,000
-4%
280/
$
0%
00/
$
0%
0%
$ 87,500
0%
24%
S 87,500
0%
20%
$
-100%
0%
$ -
0%
00/
.00$(16Q340)
Alternative 3
2015
2016
2017
20181
1 1
Operating Revenues (+)
93,200
98,800
228,020
290,460
223,340
220,860
Operating Expenses (Except Depreciation) (-)
84,095
142,400
166,700
229,100
173,300
189,500
Capital Expenses (-)
-
-
102,294
118,624
110,119
106,000
Surplus (Shortfall)
9,105
(43,600)
(40,974)
(57,264)
(60,079)
(74,640)
70 1
January 2016
Kalispell City Airport - Existing Lease Buyout Summary
City
Lease Number
Lease Name
payment
Lease Term
Lease Rate
Lease Start
Estimated
Payout Assumptions
due on
City Payout
closure
$8,064 (office)
20years -
and$9,600
$650,000
Termination by city requires appraisal of fair
plus two 5
(hangars) per
(estimate, not
1
Red Eagle
Yes
year
year, and $3,600
Oct -OS
included in
value of the remaining term of the lease and
Payment of that amount to the lessee
extensions
e
fee for fuel
total below)
system
Lease is subject to termination by lessee if
2
Hangars 1 & 9
No
1 Year
$500 per month
Jul-06
$0
airport is abandoned. No closure payment
Peter Gross
clause in lease
Contained in
Condo Hangar
$0.16 per square
the total
Lease clause requires payment of "fair
3
Yes
20 years
Feb-07
Master Plan
market value at the then existing usage of the
A-3-1 Sands
foot per year
number of
improvements constructed on the site"
$1.9 million
Contained in
Condo Hangar
$0.16 per square
the total
Lease clause requires payment of "fair
4
A-3-2 Mount
Yes
20 years
foo
foot per year
Apr-07
Master Plan
market value at the then existing usage of the
Cleveland
number of
improvements constructed on the site"
$1.9 million
Contained in
Condo Hangar
$0.16 per square
the total
Lease clause requires payment of "fair
5
Yes
20 years
Feb-07
Master Plan
market value at the then existing usage of the
A-3-3 Pierce
foot per year
number of
improvements constructed on the site"
$1.9 million
Contained in
$0.16 per square
the total
Lease clause requires payment of "fair
6
Site A-4 T&L
Yes
20 years
Aug-07
Master Plan
market value at the then existing usage of the
foot per year
number of
improvements constructed on the site"
$1.9 million
Contained in
Site A-5 Mount
$0.16 per square
the total
Lease clause requires payment of "fair
7
Yes
20 years
Nov-08
Master Plan
market value at the then existing usage of the
Cleveland
foot per year
number of
improvements constructed on the site"
$1.9 million
$130/ sq. ft. assumed for original
construction cost, times approximate 88'X75'
$0.16 per square
bldg. = $858,000. Residual value assumes
8
Site A-5 Gross
Yes
20 years
Oct-06
$343,200
straight-line depreciation and 15 year useful
foot per year
life (858,000/15=57,000 per year). Payout
value equal to remaining six years
(57, 200/yea r x6 = 343, 200)
4 71
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
Kalispell City Airport - Existing Lease Buyout Summary
City
Lease Number
Lease Name
payment
Lease Term
Lease Rate
Lease Start
Estimated
Payout Assumptions
due on
City Payout
closure
$130/ sq. ft. assumed for original
construction cost, times approximate 60'x60'
Site A-7 Goose
$0.16 per square
bldg. = $470,000. Residual value assumes
9
Yes
20 years
Oct-04
$125,333
straight-line depreciation and 15 year useful
Bay
foot per year
life (470,000/15=31,333 per year). Payout
value equal to remaining four years
(31,333/year x4 = 125,333)
$130/ sq. ft. assumed for original
construction cost, times approximate 60'x60'
bldg. = $470,000. Residual value assumes
$0.16 per square
10
Site A-8 HC-60
Yes
20 years
Jul-06
$188,000
straight-line depreciation and 15 year useful
foot per year
life (470,000/15=31,333 per year). Payout
value equal to remaining six years
(31,333/year x6 = 188,000)
Site A-8 North
11
Country
Part of Above Lease
Holdings
$0.17 per square
City payment clause only refers to
12
Site A-11
No
20 years
foot per year-
Feb-08
$0
unamortized portion of the cost of a hangar.
Padilla
empty site
No hangar on this site.
$130/ sq. ft. assumed for original
construction cost, times approximate 60'x80'
bldg. = $624,000. Residual value assumes
13
Site A-12
Yes
10years
$0.16 per square
Oct-06
$249,600
straight-line depreciation and 15 year useful
Strand
foot per year
life ($624,000/15=$41,600 per year). Payout
value equal to remaining six years
($41,600/year x6 = $249,600)
Contained in
$0.16 per square
the total
Lease clause requires payment of "fair
14
Site A-1,2,3
Yes
20 years
N/A
Master Plan
market value at the then existing usage of the
foot per year
number of
improvements constructed on the site"
$1.9 million
Lease is subject to termination by lessee if
15
T-Hangar -
No
1 year
$500 per month
N/A
$0
airport is abandoned. No closure payment
Billmayber
clause in lease
$0.16 per square
16
Hilton
No
99 years
N/A
$0
None
foot per year
Total City Payments $906,133
72 1
January 2016
0
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
1 Cemetery Rd Project
2 New Elementary School
3 Dog Park
4 Community Park
5 HWY 93 Trail Expansion
6 Welcome to Kalispell Sign
7 Business Park
8 Aviation Business Park
9 Park- N-Ride/Trailhead
10 Mixed -Use Development
City of Kalispell
South Kalispell Urban Renewal District
0 118 114 112 Mile TN
1;
---------------
-----------------
74 1
January 2016
APPENDIX B
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES
Improvement 1
Estimate
Cemetery Rd Improvements
$9,100,000
Improvement 2
Estimate
Elementary School
N/A
Improvement 3
Estimate
Dog Park
$400,000
Improvement 4
Estimate
Community Park
$6,400,000
Improvement 5
Estimate
Expand Highway 93 bike and pedestrian trail network
$650,000
Improvement 6
Estimate
"Welcome to Kalispell"sign
$260,000
Improvement 7
Estimate
Highway93 Business Park
$16,700,000
Improvement 8
Estimate
Aviation Business Park
$5,000,000
Improvement 9
Estimate
Park-N-Ride Trailhead
$535,000
Improvement 10
Estimate
Relocate City Shops/1 st Ave Commercial District
$22,000,000
TOTAL
$61,045,000
4 75
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
CEMETERY ROAD PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES
Cemetery Road Improvements
Demolition/Desi n/Prep
Surveying/Staking
80
HR
9
$100.00
=
$8,000
Fn ineerin /Desi n
1
LS
9
$800,000.00
=
$800,000
Asphalt Demo
6000
LF
9
$30.00
=
$180,000
Silt Fence/SWPP
12000
LF
9
$2.91
=
$34,920
Strip Topsoil
9
Acre
9
$5,000.00
=
$45,000
Subtotal
$1,067,920
Grad in /Roadwa s
Survey! n/Stak! ng
400
HR
9
$100.00
=
$40,000
Earthwork - Bulk
33000
CY
9
$10.00
=
$330,000
Finish Grade
27000
SY
9
$2.00
=
$54,000
Curb/Gutter
12000
LF
9
$35.00
=
$420,000
4" Asphalt/12" Base/18" Subbase 46' wide
6000
LF
9
$312.00
=
$1,872,000
Su btota I
$2, 716, 000
Utilities
Surveying/Staking
500
HR
9
$100.00
=
$50,000
Storm Sewer w/Manholes
12000
LF
9
$80.00
=
$960,000
Sanitary Sewerw/Manholes
6000
LF
9
$45.00
=
$270,000
Water Line 12" Inc. Fxcav/Backfill
6000
LF
9
$54.00
=
$324,000
Subtotal
$1,604,000
Amenities
Site Lighting
100
FA
1 9
1 $4,000.00
=
$400,000.00
si na e
11
LS
1 9
1 $20,000.00
=
$20,000.00
Subtotal
$420,000
Subtotal
=
$6,007,920
Contingency
9 25% _
$1,501,980
Subtotal
=
$7,509,900
General Conditions
9 10% _
$750,990.00
Subtotal
=
$8,260,890
Contractor OH & Profit
9 10% _
$826,089
Total
$9,086,979
Rounded
$9,100,000
76 1
January 2016
DOG PARK PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES
Dog Park
Demo lition/Desi n/Prep
Surveying/Staking
20
HR
@
$100.00
=
$2,000
Fn ineerin /Desi n
1
LS
@
$10,000.00
=
$10,000
Site Demo
1
LS
9
$500.00
=
$500
Silt Fence/SWPP
120
LF
9
$2.91
=
$349
Strip Topsoil
2
Acre
@
$5,000.00
=
$10,000
Subtotal
$22,849
Grading
Surveying/Staking
I 20
HR
19
1 $100.00
=
1 $2,000
Earthwork - Bulk
10001
CY
1 @
1 $10.00
=
$10,000
Finish Grade
100001
SY
1 @
1 $2.00
=
$20,000
1
S u btota 1
$32,000
Utilities
Surveying/Staking
I 500
HR
19
1 $100.00
=
$50,000
Water Line 2" Inc. Fxcav/Backfill
5001
LF
19
1 $34.00
=
$51,000
S u btota 1
$101, 000
andscaping/Irrigation
andscaoina/Seedina
u btota I
Amenities
Site Lighting
11
LS
1 @
1 $10,000.00
=
$10,000.00
Fencing
40001
LF
1 @
1 $25.00
=
$100,000.00
S u btota 1
$110, 000
Subtotal
=
$315,849
Contingency
@ 5% _
$15,792
Subtotal
=
$331,642
General Conditions
@ 10% _
$33,164.17
Subtotal
=
$364,806
Contractor OH & Profit
@ 10% _
$36,481
Total
$401,286
Rounded
$400,000
4 77
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
COMMUNITY PARK PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES
Community Park
Community Park
Community Center
1
LS
@
$1,500,000
=
$1,500,000
Splash Park
1
LS
@
$400,000
=
$400,000
Pavilion
1
LS
@
$50,000
=
$50,000
Volleyball
1
LS
@
$30,000
=
$30,000
Horseshoes
1
LS
@
$4,000
=
$4,000
Playground
1
LS
@
$30,000
=
$30,000
Tarking
300
pace
@
$2,000
=
$600,000
Covered Basketball Courts
1
LS
@
$100,000
=
$100,000
Tennis Courts
2
EA
@
$90,000
=
$180,000
Picnic Area
1
LS
@
$50,000
=
$50,000
Event Lawn/Amphitheatre
1
LS
9
$500,000
=
$500,000
Soccer Fields
6
EA
@
$50,000
=
$300,000
Event Lawn
1
LS
9
$30,000
=
$30,000
Football Field
1
LS
@
$400,000
=
$400,000
Maintence Facility
1
LS
9
$150,000
=
$150,000
Skate Park
1
LS
@
$100,000
=
$100,000
Trail
4000
LF
@
$80
=
$320,000
Si na e
1
LS
@
$50,000
=
$50,000
Road
1
LS
@
$250,000
=
$250,000
S u btota 1
$5, 044,000
Subtotal
=
$5,044,000
Contingency
@ 5% _
$252,200
Subtotal
=
$5,296,200
General Conditions
@ 10% _
$529,620.00
Subtotal
=
$5,825,820
Contractor OH & Profit
@ 10% _
$582,582
Tota 1
$6, 408, 402
Rounded
$6,400,000
78 1
January 2016
HIGHWAY 93 TRAIL EXPANSION PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES
Through -Connection of HWY 93 Trail System
Demo lition/Desi n/Prep
Surveying/Staking
40
HR
@
$100.00
=
$4,000
Fn ineerin /Desi n
1
LS
@
$10,000.00
=
$10,000
Site Demo
1
LS
9
$5,000.00
=
$5,000
Silt Fence/SWPP
400
LF
9
$2.91
=
$1,164
Strip Topsoil
3
Acre
@
$5,000.00
=
$15,000
Subtotal
$35,164
Grad in/Pavement
Surveying/Staking
20
HR
@
$100.00
=
$2,000
Earthwork - Bulk
5500
CY
9
$10.00
=
$55,000
3" Asphalt/12" base/Geo rid
5000
LF
@
$60.00
=
$300,000
Finish Grade
11000
SY
@
$2.00
=
$22,000
Subtotal
$379,000
Utilities
Surveying/Staking
I 20
HR
1 @
1 $100.00
=
$2,000
Incidental Utility Removal
1
ILS
1 @
1 $5,000.00
=
$5,000
S u btota 1
1 $ 7,000
ndscaping/Irrigation
ndscapinq/Seedinq
S u btota I
Amenities
Site Lighting
11
LS
1 @
1 $10,000.00
=
$10,000.00
Benches
21
FA
1 @
1 $800.00
=
$1,600.00
S u btota 1
$11, 600
Subtotal
=
$482,764
Contingency
@ 10% _
$48,276
Subtotal
=
$531,040
General Conditions
@ 10% _
$53,104.04
Subtotal
=
$584,144
Contractor OH & Profit
@ 10% _
$58,414
Total
$642,559
Rounded
$650,000
4 79
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
HIGHWAY 93 BUSINESS PARK PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES
HWY 93 Business Park
HWY 93 Business Park
A Commercial
16400
SF
9
$180.00
=
$2,952,000
B Commercial
15700
SF
9
$190.00
=
$2,983,000
C Light Industrial
11200
SF
9
$140.00
=
$1,568,000
D Light Industrial
15600
SF
9
$140.00
=
$2,184,000
F Light Industrial
8400
SF
9
$140.00
=
$1,176,000
F Light Industrial
105001
SF
1 9
1 $140.00
=
$1,470,000
Future Road
1
FA
$150,000.00
=
$150,000
Fntry Feature
1
FA
$60,000.00
=
$60,000
Parking
290
spacel
9
1 $2,000.00
=
$580,000
Subtotal
$13,123,000
Subtotal
=
$13,123,000
Contingency
9 5% _
$656,150
Subtotal
=
$13,779,150
General Conditions
9 10% _
$1,377,915.00
Subtotal
=
$15,157,065
Contractor OH & Profit
9 10% _
$1,515,707
Total
$16,672,772
Rounded
$16, 700,000
January 2016
AVIATION BUSINESS PARK PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES
Aviation Business Park
Aviation Business Park
Aviation Repair
12000
SF
@
$125.00
=
$1,500,000
Airport Operations
10000
SF
@
$190.00
=
$1,900,000
Site Utilities/Lighting
1
LS
@
$150,000.00
=
$150,000
Site Improvements/Parking
150
spaces
9
$2,000.00
=
$300,000
Misc.landscaping/Site Amenities
1
LS
9
$50,000.00
=
$50,000
S u btota I
$T 900, 000
Subtotal
=
$3,900,000
Contingency
@ 5% _
$195,000
Subtotal
=
$4,095,000
General Conditions
@ 10% _
$409,500.00
Subtotal
=
$4,504,500
Contractor OH & Profit
@ 10% _
$450,450
Total
$4,954,950
Rounded
$5,000,000
SOUTH KALISPELL Urban Renewal Plan
PARK-N-RIDETRAILHEAD PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES
Park'N' RideTrailhead
Demolition/Design/Prep
Surveying/Staking
10
HR
@
$100.00
=
$1,000
Engineering/Design
10
%
@
$1,000.00
=
$10,000
Construction Entrance
1
LS
@
$1,000.00
=
$1,000
Silt Fence/SWPP
2000
LF
@
$2.91
=
$5,820
Strip Topsoil
0.6
Acre
@
$5,000.00
=
$3,000
Subtotal
$20,820
Grading
Surveying/Staking
30
HR
@
$100.00
=
$3,000
Earthwork-Berming
600
CY
@
$5.00
=
$3,000
Excavation
1000
CY
@
$12.00
=
$12,000
Finish Grade for Parking Lots
3000
SY
@
$1.13
=
$3,390
Subtotal
$21,390
Utilities
Surveying/Staking
20
HR
@
$80.00
=
$1,600
Water Line 2" Inc. Excav/Backfill
200
LF
@
$10.00
=
$2,000
Water Line Misc.
1
LS
@
$500.00
=
$500
Fountain Drain 2" Sch 40 PVC
40
LF
@
$4.68
=
$187
Subtotal
$4,287
Paving
Surveying/Staking
30
HR
@
$80.00
=
$2,400
Asphalt Parking 4" x 12" Base
2000
SY
@
$34.00
=
$68,000
Asphalt Drive Apron 4" x 10" Base
800
SY
@
$34.00
=
$27,200
Asphalt Pavement Sidewalk/Trail
10000
SF
@
$5.00
=
$50,000
Concrete Curb and Gutter
800
LF
@
$30.00
=
$24,000
Pavement Striping - Stalls
40
EA
@
$8.80
=
$352
Handicap Sign
1 41
EA
I @
1 $200.00
=
1 $800
Paint Handicap Symbols
1 41
EA
I @
1 $100.00
=
1 $400
Subtotal
1 $173,152
Buildings/Structures
Picnic Shelter
1
EA
@
$30,000.00
=
$30,000
Bridge
1000
SF
@
$90.00
=
$90,000
Benches
21
EA
@
$500.001
$1,000
Subtotal
$121,000
Landscaping/Irrigation
Topsoil Placement
850
CY
@
$15.00
$12,750
Evergreen Trees
5
EA
@
$200.00
=
$1,000
Deciduous Trees
14
EA
@
$200.00
=
$2,800
Lawn/Sod
40
MSF
@
$390.00
=
$15,600
Native Grasses
1
Acre
@
$6,000.00
=
$6,000
Irrigation System
0.5
AC
@
$20,000.00
=
$10,000
Fertilizer (in -place)
1 401
MSF
I @
$3.89
$156
Subtotal
1 $48,306
Amenities
Drinking Fountain
1
I EA
I @
1 $4,000.00
=
$4,000.00
Site Lighting
41
ea
I @
1 $4,000.00
=
$16,000.00
Directional/EntrySignage
1
I LS
I @
1 $12,000.001
$12,000.00
Subtotal
$32,000
Subtotal
=
$420,955
Contingency
@ 5% _
$21,048
Subtotal
=
$442,003
General Conditions
@ 10% _
$44,200
Subtotal
=
$486,203
Contractor CH & Profit
@ 10% _
$48,620
Total
$534,823
Rounded
$535,000
82 1
January 2016
RELOCATE CITY SHOPS/1 STAVE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES
1 st Ave Commercial District
1st Ave Commercial District
A Livework
12000
SF
9
$180.00
=
$2,160,000
B Livework
17000
SF
9
$190.00
=
$3,230,000
C Livework
22000
SF
9
$220.00
=
$4,840,000
D Livework
10500
SF
9
$200.00
=
$2,100,000
F Livework
12000
SF
9
$200.00
=
$2,400,000
F Livework
9000
SF
@
1 $200.00
=
$1,800,000
Site Utilities
1
FA
9
$150,000.00
=
$150,000
Si na e/Li htin /amenities
1
FA
@
$200,000.00
=
$200,000
lParking
180
pacej
@
1 $2,000.00
=
$360,000
S u btota 1
$17, 240,000
Subtotal
=
$17,240,000
Contingency
@ 5% _
$862,000
Subtotal
=
$18,102,000
General Conditions
@ 10% _
$1,810,200.00
Subtotal
=
$19,912,200
Contractor OH & Profit
@ 10% _
$1,991,220
Tota 1
$21, 903, 420
Rounded
$22,000,000
4 83
I