Loading...
12/99 Amendment/Final Airport Master Plan Studyi Morrison-Maierle, Inc. 910 Helena Avenue Helena, MT 59601 DECEMBER 1999 A. TEXT REVISIONS B. PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES C. WRITTEN COMMENTS SUBMITTED AFTER PUBLIC HEARING D. AIRPORT LAYOUT DRAWING FOR ALTERNATE 2, 5 ° RE -ALIGNMENT E. ATTACHMENTS 10 *114 d 1. Add the following statement to the title page of the document: "The preparation of this document was financed in part through a planning grant from the Federal Aviation Administration as provided under Section 505 of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982. The Contents do not necessarily reflect the official view or policy of the FAA. Acceptance of this report by the FAA does not in any way constitute a commitment on the part of the United States to participate in any development depicted therein nor does it indicate that the proposed development is environmentally acceptable with appropriate public laws." 2. Eliminate paragraph 2 on Page 30, and replace with the following: Generally, land uses around the landing field are compatible with the airport; however, FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces are currently protected under recently re -adopted Zoning Ordinance No. 4451. It is important to note that this ordinance protects these surfaces only for the existing landing field in existing orientation and small aircraft only use. If the City zn of Kalispell adopts a B-H airport with an alternate runway orientation, this Zoning Ordinance will require further revision. A revised page 30 is attached. 3. Add the following to page 59. The current taxiway configuration is not planned to remain the same in any of the alternatives except Alternate 5. Since the area east of the airport, adjacent to Highway 93, is planned for commercial development, the area between the runway and edge of the property does not provide adequate room for a taxiway under FAA criteria. The parallel taxiway is shown on the west side of the runway in all instances where FAA standards are met. The existing facilities on the east side of the runway will be impacted under the new configuration. Access to these facilities may not be as convenient as the existing conditions, however, access could be provided fiom the end of the proposed runways to Red Eagle Aviation, provided the aircraft parking areas are outside the required FAA clearances. 1 4. Add the following to Paragraph, 1. Noise, on page 29. A noise model has been completed for this study utilizing the Integrated Noise Model (INM), Version 5.1, published by the FAA Office of Environment and Energy. The model produces noise contours that are an average -value model and is designed to estimate long-term average effects using average annual input conditions. Because ofthis, differences between predicted and measured values can sometimes occur because important local acoustical variables are not averaged, or because they may not be explicitly modeled in the INM. The fleet mix of aircraft utilized in the model was based on the aircraft currently using the airport and aircraft planned at the airport, using information provided in the user survey that was conducted. The largest aircraft included in the model are B-II aircraft such as the Beech King Air 200, The INM also uses the aircraft operations forecasted in Chapter 2 as the basis for the noise contours. There was no change in the noise level contours detected by the model between the operations forecasted in 2003 and 2018. This is due to the sensitivity of the model at this level of usage by small general aviation aircraft. The contours extend further from the airport with additional operations by aircraft with higher noise levels. In order to illustrate this, a noise group containing smaller business jets, such as the Cessna Citation, was added to the 2018 operations. This model included an average of 2.9 operations per day. This type of aircraft is estimated as the size of aircraft that could use the runway if it was in the 4300 to 4700 foot length. Larger jets would probably choose to use Glacier Park International. The noise level contours with the jets included are attached and identified as 2018JET. The following table illustrates the assumed fleet mix and percentages of usage utilized in the INM for each of the forecast years. Aircraft Model Group Typical Aircraft GASEPF Beechcraft Model 24 Sierra Cessna 150 Cessna 172 Piper Cub GASEPV Beechcraft Model 33 Bonanza Piper Cherokee 235 Mooney M-20 L Piper Pawnee BEC58P Beech King Air C90 Cessna 310 IW Total Ops % RWY 13 RWY 31 68% 30% 70% 24% 30% 70% 4% 30% 70% Piper PA 23 - 235 Piper Comanche CNA441 Beech King Air 100 4% 30% Turbo Commander Piper PA - 31 T The following breakdown was utilized when the INM included small jets: Aircraft Total Ops Model Group Typical Aircraft % RWY 13 GASEPF Beechcraft Model 24 Sierra 67% 30% Cessna 150 Cessna 172 Piper Cub GASEPV Beechcraft Model 33 Bonanza Piper Cherokee 235 Mooney M-20 L Piper Pawnee BEC58P Beech King Air C90 Cessna 310 Piper PA 23 - 235 Piper Comanche CNA441 Beech King Air 100 Turbo Commander Piper PA - 31T MU3001 Cessna Citation II Cessna Citation V The additional Noise Model including the jets is attached. 9 70% RWY 31 70% 23% 30% 70% 4% 30% 70% 4% 30% 2% 30% 70% 70% Page 38 6. Page 54, 55, 56 7. Page 73 S. Appendix J. DAKAL-CTYltextre ilion.add Replace page 38 with the page included. Table 10 has been revised to snatch the table on page 67. Replace these pages with the pages enclosed. The costs have been revised to correspond with those in Appendix C. Replace page 73 with the page attached. Table 25 has been revised to reflect the City Council support of Alternate 2. Replace Appendix J with the attached forms. The costs have been adjusted to match the costs illustrated in Appendix C. 11 KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT PROJECT FINAL FEASIBILITY/MASTER PLAN STUDY PUBLIC HEARING Kalispell City Council Meeting Council Chambers - City Hall 10/4/99 Kalispell, MT The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Council came to order at 7 p.m. with all members of the Council present. Tim Orthmeyer, Airport Division, Morrison-Maierle Engineering, Helena, MT, gave a brief presentation to the City Council members and the attending public regarding the Feasibility/Master Plan Study for the Kalispell City Airport. Mayor Boharski: Good evening and welcome to the regular City Council meeting of October 4, 1999, at 7 p.m. I would like to call the meeting to order. At this time we will open the Public Hearing on the Final Feasibility/Master Plan Study for the Kalispell City Airport. Tim Orthmeyer from Morrison-Maierle will present the plan and we will then take comments from those in favor or opposed. Tim Orthmeyer: Mayor Boharski, members of the City Council, we appreciate the opportunity to be here and summarize briefly the Master Plan Study that we have prepared for the city with the aid of the FAA and federal funding regarding the future of the Kalispell City Airport. The purpose of the study was two -fold: 1) to present information to the City Council to make decisions regarding the future of the Kalispell City Airport; and 2) to address concerns identified by the FAA also regarding the future of the Kalispell City Airport. Some of the concerns that the FAA has regarding the city airport is the current dimensional standards they feel do not meet the current FAA requirements. They have concerns regarding the radio towers to the south of the airport and regarding that they also requested there be some air space review and analysis done in and around the airport. We also addressed land acquisition requirements requested by the FAA. We identified some development costs associated with a B-II Airport here at the city airport. They wanted to know and identify some of the costs associated with a generic site which would be located somewhere close by the city in an around the Kalispell area. The Kalispell City Airport Project - Public Hearing for the Final Feasibility/Master Plan Study October 4, 1999 fifth concern dealt with environmental issues and required an environmental overview. During the facility requirement section of the study, we identified the critical aircraft that would be using the airport throughout the study period which is approximately 20 years. Along with the critical aircraft, we identified the design requirements and dimensional criteria associated with the airport which would identify the land acquisition required to build a B- II airport at the existing site. As I stated, an aircraft the size of a B-II was identified as the critical aircraft. From that information we came up with size of the airport you would need here for the next 20 years. We did a site analysis where we identified five different alternatives: Alternative # 1 was the existing alignment at the current site with a B-II dimensional criteria; Alternative 92 identified a five degree realignment of the current runway with B-II dimensional criteria; Alternative #3 was the current configuration of the airport - we've identified it as the $1 million option which would be 100% city cost; Alternative 94 was the generic location requested by the FAA; Alternative #5 was a no -development alternative which would leave the airport at its current status. During the site analysis we set up a matrix analysis that identified direct aeronautical issues and non -direct aeronautical issues which dealt more with the social impacts and not so much the dimensional criteria. From the matrix, with the input we had from the public meetings we held and also with the Airport Advisory Board, Alternative #2 was the preferred alternative. Alternative #2 is the five degree realignment of the current airport. Once this site analysis was completed, we continued the study with the financial plan where we identified the financial feasibility of all the alternatives and investigated how the city and the FAA, along with other sources of revenue, may be able to finance and develop the airport at its 2 Kalispell City Airport Project - Public Hearing for the Final Feasibility/Master Plan Study October 4, 1999 current location. From this financial plan analysis, the outcome identified three viable alternatives: 1) One would be the 5% realignment preferred by our analysis and site matrix — we felt that would be affordable with full FAA participation at 100% level; 2) The second alternative that seemed to be viable was the existing alignment — the $1 million alternative that would be 100% city cost; 3) The third alternative that appeared to be feasible was the do-nothing alternative which would leave the airport as it is and cost the city no money other than long-term maintenance. The Plan has been available for review for four weeks (30 days) prior to this meeting. It has been advertised. The purpose of this meeting tonight is to solicit input from the public or anybody with concerns regarding the study and perhaps answer some questions. From these comments we would hope that down the road the City County would formally adopt the Master Plan Study. After this meeting an addendum to the Master Plan Study will be issued which will contain a transcript of the comments made tonight and any changes that have been made since the study was published 30 days ago so it becomes part of the study. Subject to City Council approval, we typically allow a 2-week period for written comments in case someone was not able to attend this meeting tonight. This information will be used in your analysis and decision making for the future for the airport. At this time I will close my formal part of the presentation and turn it back to the Mayor to direct the comments in favor of or not in favor of the Airport Master Plan Study. Thank you. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Mayor Boharski: At this time we will have anyone who considers themselves somewhat in favor of one part or another of the proposal comment first. Gilbert Bissell: I reside at 76 Stafford Street. I've been speaking in favor of the airport for about five years and you guys probably know my speech better than I do, so I'll keep it really brief. I just have two points that I want to bring out about things I've seen in the press lately. The first is the question of why the taxpayers should foot the bill for the airport for 40 local hobbyists to go out on Sunday and play around. My argument to that is a prime example last week — last Tuesday morning it was relatively foggy in the Flathead valley. It was a cold day driving to work and Glacier International Airport was below landing minimums and a Federal Express and several other express carriers ended up landing at the City Airport. I've flown freight for Federal Express and I can tell you that there is a lot of time -critical things Kalispell City Airport Project - Public Hearing for the Final Feasibihi Master Plan Study October 4, 1999 on those airplanes including legal documents, parts for machinery, medical supplies. Those things ended up landing at the City Airport rather than diverting back to Denver or down to Missoula. That is just one example of what goes on at the airport that I don't think people are aware of. They think it is just Sunday morning playing around out there and I can tell you that it isn't. There are a lot of other people here to speak tonight that can tell you other aspects of that airport and why they are in favor of the airport. The second part of my argument as to why should the taxpayers pay the bill for the city airport is my feeling that the taxpayers have already paid for that airport. I would just like to quote briefly from an e-mail than I received today from Randall Kopelka who is Senator Burn's assistant. It is an update on the House -Senate Conference Committee regarding the Fiscal Year 2000 Transportation Appropriations Bill: "The bill which must be approved by the House and Senate before it goes to the President for his signature approves $27.7 Billion for highway programs. The bill also provides $1.95 Billion for the Airport Improvement Program." That is billion with a `B". That billion dollars has been paid for by people who are traveling, either purchasing airline tickets or those purchasing aviation fuel. My feeling is the taxpayers in the valley have already paid that money. Our Master Plan proves that we are eligible for it and it proves the program that can be done according to federal guidelines. So I think we need to make sure that we get our share of what is coming to this valley. The second part of my argument is that I heard lately that those of us on the Airport Advisory Board are "self serving". I don't want to speak for the other guys on the Advisory Board, but I'll speak for myself and say "yes, I am self serving and proud of it." I spent 20 years as a commercial pilot — I flew for the airlines, I flew freight, I flew in the Air Force. I know what a good airport can do for a community and I would like to see this airport do what it can for this community. We've been on the Advisory Board for five years. We were appointed by the City and asked to serve and we have been assisting the city on how to manage this asset. Five years ago when we started this program, we didn't have a clue where we were going to go or what the airport was going to look like. We've now spent $120,000 worth of FAA money which I don't think they would have spent if they weren't committed to the project. We've got the best engineers working on it and I think we now have the goal in site. It is either spending $1 million of city money and improving the runway right where it's at or going with the 5% realignment. To me the 5% realignment is clear and away the best alternative. I think we are eligible for the money .19 Kalispell City Airport Project - Public Hearing for the Final Feasibility/Master Plan Study October 4, 1999 and it solves a lot of problems. I'm not here to say it will solve every problem or that there aren't going to be other issues that come up. I think the 5% realignment is the way to go and I would strongly urge you to keep pressing in that direction. Thank you. Art Thompson: I live in Lakeside but I own property in the city. I am a member of the Airport Advisory Board. Mr. Mayor and Councilmen, very briefly one bit of supplemental data to the report that has been given by the engineers, is a survey that was done this summer by ourselves at our own expense on our own time. This is the actual return (referring to document), there are about 200 forms here that were filled out at the airport by the pilots as they arrived. This is from transient pilots, not based aircraft. This is from people coming to the city airport for a purpose here in the valley, or least for a gas stop and a meal and going on their way to somewhere else. This data was collected over a 15-week time period from June 10`h with the cooperation of both Red Eagle and Diamond Air and their personnel. The survey form was designed by Dr. Greg Davis, the economist from the FECC faculty. There are almost 200 returns on the survey in my stack and only ten failed to complete the financial information that was asked. Bear in mind that this is a peak season thing — so there is some bias involved here. I can't represent that this is a year -around sort of occurrence. Of these 200 aircraft, the estimate of expenditures they were to make in the community while they were here was in excess of $180,000 — approximately $1,014 per aircraft. Interestingly enough there were quite a few people involved also. I expected there would be a lot of single or two - person airplanes involved in the survey, but the more typical was three to four and occasionally five to six — quite a sizeable number of people. It was very common to report a stay anywhere from one day to one week, and less common to be just a gas stop or longer term seasonal sort of visit. The other striking thing on the forms is the surprising number of business reasons for the trips. It was commonly a business and a vacation or recreational opportunity that was being exercised. I would guess that at least one third of these forms have a business reason for their trip here. We did see some interesting aircraft and some interesting people — Senator Burns took the time and trouble to fill out one of the forms himself which I thought was kind of nice. We have a visit from Dick Groutan who was the pilot of the Around the World Airplane "The Voyager". I did not include in the financial tally the reported purchase of a new home at $1 million by one of our visitors. Also take special note of the fact that 5 Kalispell City Airport Project - Public Hearing for the Final Feasibility/Master Plan Study October 4, 1999 one reported a purchase of a new car while he was here. I guess that is understandable since we apparently have more car dealerships, both new and used, in the valley than any other part other state. So people are coming here on purpose to buy a car. Maybe they feel they get a better break here. We had a substantial number of comments about the convenience of the airport being close to the things people wanted to get to. Several comments indicated they would not have come to this valley if it had not been for Kalispell City Airport. Thank you. Janna Goodwin: I live at 200 1" Avenue East, Kalispell. I want to say that this small airport is an established use I see as a wonderful continuing addition to our city. It adds a great deal of breadth and dynamic variety. I really appreciate what it does and hope that it continues in whatever way, especially the Airport Advisory Board, sees fit. Lex Blood: I reside at 844 ) Avenue East, Kalispell. I'm not here to either speak firmly in favor of or as an objector to the airport. That is the reason I took this opportunity to not be cast in the objector role that these days seems to have an onus attached to it. I certainly am aware of the existing use of the airport. As a matter of fact I live right under the flight pattern as do many people who live on the east side of Kalispell. My points are not aeronautic, they are not economic, they have to do with the quality of life in the community. Kalispell is increasingly congested and increasingly noisy. Those of you who happen to live close to down town, if you are willing to listen to or hear the dragging of main on Saturday nights, that is a delightful noise. We have traffic that is increasing in terms of its number and the rapidity apparently that it traverses city streets. We are subjected to a lot of noise. The over flights from the airport, both landings and departures, certainly do not add to the quiet. There is a sign on the south side of Kalispell, right at Kiwanis Park, that advertises Kalispell as "better for business" and I applaud that, I think that is wonderful. But Kalispell is not just a place where people do business, Kalispell is a place where people live. It seems to me just as important in your consideration of this airport proposal. Whichever choice you make, and I'm not here to propose one or the other, take into account the people who live under, around, or next to that airport. The noise factor is a very important one. Whatever your choice is, I hope that is a very strong factor in your decision. I would particularly be concerned, while I noticed in the paper there is no indication there will be an invitation to larger aircraft, it 0 Kalispell City Airport Project - Public Hearing for the Final FeasibiliglMaster Plan Study October 4, 1999 was just alluded to that Fed Ex is coming in and other rapid delivery types, which by the way we didn't have five or ten years ago. We've hyped everything up. We've pushed everything forward. These are not things we had five or ten years ago. If jets can come in for those purposes, why with an expanded airport and better facilities can they not come in on a more regular basis. Certainly the size of aircraft, the mode of force twin engine aircraft — I think we really need to be concerned with what we are proposing for our midst. That is an increasingly urban area, a commercial area, we have people living out there directly under the flight path, and I think we should be very very careful with what we do there. We are not doing something just on an incremental basis. This, as your plan says, will be for at least 20 years hence. Once these things gain momentum, as we can certainly see here tonight, it is very difficult to divert that momentum. To come back to these city hall chambers ... the momentum that was developed up on Reserve and 93. Look where that led us. We need to consider all the alternatives. We need to consider what the ramifications of those choices are and take that into account when we make the decision. Thank you very much. Myron K. Mike Strand: I live at 1258 Foys Lake Road. I own property in Kalispell and I also own some property west of town now. I moved after I sold my interest at the airport. I was interested in Mrs. Swanberg's comment about tunnel vision. I guess I might be accused by some of having similar tunnel vision. I have been a proponent of the airport for quite some years. I thought I'd better get up here real quick before the suspense of what I might say was too overwhelming for you folks. Mr. Mayor and Council I appreciate the opportunity to comment and I thank you very much. Reading the recent letters to the editor and the usual things that come out in those letters, in the case of the airport, I think the tunnel vision really is on the other side of the fence here. We see the same comments we saw decades ago-35 years ago when I started at the airport and became a proponent of improving the airport security and the facility in general. We heard the same kind of comments then — run it like a golf course was one that was very common. The concerns about safety — we have a very safe record out there for all the years we've been there. The fact that the airport is being used by just a few folks on weekends, a few who want to go out for fun flying -- this airport, in my time out here, has graduated. In my business alone I have a list of over 1,000 pilots who took flight training in my operation. I can count airline pilots all over the world — military pilots, ambulance pilots, corporate pilots who are now active in industry 7 Kalispell City Airport Project - Public Hearing for the Final Feasibility/Master Plan Study October 4, 1999 who went to my flight school. I only had one of two flight schools down there. I must assume Stockill Aviation did a similar amount of flying across the runway, in fact I know they did. They also sold about the same amount of gasoline I did. They did the same number of charter flights. We competed every three years for the Forest Service contracts. So I know their flying was up on par with mine. For years now, and to this day, a very high percentage of the game flights, the game management flights, fly out of Kalispell City Airport. They always have and as long as the airport is there I think they always will. U.S. Forest Service flights for all the years I've been here have been based at Kalispell City Airport. There have been at times a few flights out of the other airport, and of course they have the Retardant Plant out there so that is an activity that is there and we'll never have that down here and we don't need it. The Soil Conservation snow survey flights all practically originated from Kalispell City Airport and still do. I have people who have worked for me in Strand Aviation who are in FAA management around the world — the Chief of Maintenance for the FAA in Fairbanks, Alaska, is a former employee and student of mine. The Maintenance Supervisors at Idaho State College were former students of mine. The Chief of Flight Training at Moses Lake Community College was a former student and employee of mine. Most visitors to the valley, other than airline passengers, do come through Kalispell City Airport. Over the years, the ambulance flights originated at Kalispell City Airport. My first ambulance flight out of Kalispell City Airport was for Governor Hugo Arronson. The reason I remember that one in particular, was because he was so tall I had to kick out a non- structural bulk head in the back of the airplane to load him aboard, so I remember that one very distinctly. Hundreds of ambulance flights out of the airport. Of course in the old days, the Alert originated at Kalispell City Airport. There has been a comment in the paper that the pattern of the Alert helicopter on the way in and out of the valley conflicts with the City Airport and they alluded to the lack of some modern means of communications. The communication is the same as it has always been and probably won't change. There is nothing more modern than the two pilots of those aircraft as they meet telling each other where they are and what 9 Kalispell City Airport Project - Public Hearing for the Final Feasibihty/ aster Plan Study October 4, 1999 they are doing — it works. It is very effective and I don't think anybody in Alert would want to even change or talk about changing that. Along the line of game flights also for years and years I flew the Glacier Park people on their eagle surveys in Glacier Park. Those are just a few of the things that have gone on out there and I don't see any end in sight. I think the end in sight of course is the possibility that the current plans would not go forward. I think one of the best things about the new plan, as presented right now, is the realignment of the runway which does a very effective job of eliminating a lot of the noise over the town. It will do a very effective job of eliminating potential conflicts or the possibility of an accident of some kind happening. It is also very logical in that it releases some very valuable ground on the highway side of the runway and in turn will use some less valuable ground on the other side costing a lot less money. There has been comment about local taxpayers paying the bills. As stated earlier I agree with the statement that the local taxpayers have paid the bill. They have owned this airport for a long, long time. It was a originally purchased by the way to be an airport — the early city fathers seeing the desirability of having an airport available. What we are talking about now is creating millions of dollars of federal money, part of which I contributed. I think it is time that our local pilots, whether they be the recreational kind or those of us who worked and made our living on the airport and trained all those people who are out doing other things. I think it's time for some of that federal money to come back and be beneficial to us. Thank you very much. Bill Goodman: I live at 200 1" Avenue East, Kalispell. I've come to the Council a few times in the past as a downtown business owner and as representative of the Downtown Business Association, always asking for money, always for projects to get approved. One of your criteria has been how are we going to get the best bang for the buck, there is not enough money to go around. I do want to say the Downtown Business Association supports this airport — not really expansion but continued growth. We feel it is a benefit that will help downtown Kalispell. Though we will continue to view projects as to how they will benefit the commerce downtown, we feel that this is one that we want to support. I Kalispell City Airport Project - Public Hearing for the Final Feasibility/Master Plan Study October 4, 1999 Wayne Rustan: I live at 2898 Highway 93 North. I don't own property in the city but I do in the county. I don't really know many people here and I haven't been involved in this process but I have kept up with it. I moved here about six years ago. I was an Air Traffic Controller at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago. I've been involved in aviation for about 30 years and prior to moving here my family and I commuted back and forth from Chicago to the Kalispell City Airport to vacation and so forth. I think it is a valuable asset to this area. I'm a specific example of the type of people that use the airport. We used it several times a year over the last 20 years, finally buying property in town and now we live here full time. I would highly recommend that one of the alternatives be approved. After reading the Master Plan, I would be in favor of the 5% realignment. Thank you for your time. Mike Ferguson: I'm the Administrator of the Montana Aeronautics Division. We strongly support the development of this airport. We've been involved somewhat from the beginning with financial assistance as well. Now this isn't the federal money, this is state money. It is trust fund money which is derived from aviation fuel taxes paid by general aviation — not the airlines, only general aviation. We have both a loan and a grant program, although small in comparison to the federal program it does, in most cases throughout the state, act as seed money to allow the local governments to come up with the 10% sponsor share. Many times it is in the form of both a grant and a loan — a ten-year low -interest loan. We feel that Kalispell City Airport is unique in the state in its location and proximity to the businesses in town. That is one of the reasons it is very popular for business travel fliers. You can land your airplane here and walk to your meeting. You can walk to motels, you can walk to some of the best eating places in town, and for some people to a bar and then go to the motel. It is very unique. Also, we've been involved over the years — we used to be in the Department of Commerce and we still do a lot of commerce work for the state. We are now in the Transportation Department. We've brought in several — maybe not totally responsible, but we solicit and work with flying organizations to have their conventions in Montana. We do this all the time. A few that we have been involved with and our people have actually come to Kalispell and helped with registration, parking airplanes at the Kalispell City Airport. Again, it is because of the location to convention motels. The Cessna 170 Organization, an international organization, came here. The International Aircoop Association came 10 Kalispell City Airport Project - Public Hearing for the Final FeasibilityWaster Plan Study October 4, 1999 here. The Avian Association came here. Even the Flying Dentist's Association came here. All within recent years. In addition we hold our Mountain Search Pilot Clinic here every year as we did a week ago, whereby we bring mountain search pilot volunteers to Kalispell City and further train these people in air search techniques in the mountains. There is not another airport in Montana that can serve our purpose nearly as well as Kalispell City — we can walk to the motels, and all of the places, we can have our evening ground school sessions over at the Outlaw Inn and in some cases the National Guard Facility. We use those facilities every year as well as the Outlaw Inn, and we use the Arrow Inn also, as well as some of the other motels. You can park your airplanes right at the Arrow Inn. Time is of the essence. Logistics — there is no transportation for that many people — they can walk everywhere they need to go and be there on time. You've heard all the economic reasons why this airport is important and I won't repeat that much. Mike Strand explained that very well as did some others. Those are important factors. The noise is always a concern of ours but I believe if you wanted to really talk about noise, right along that airport is way noisier than the airport will ever be. With the newer aircraft coming out, the noise is a big factor, as it is in automobiles — quieter engines and propellers. I don't think you will see jet traffic coming into this airport. You have a beautiful airport for heavier aircraft just a few miles away with a full instrument landing system which Kalispell City will never have. So it is not going to attract that kind of traffic. Maybe on a rare occasion you will get smaller prop jets, the freighters, landing here as you heard here tonight. But I don't think that would happen on a regular basis. Plus those prop jets are quite quiet — a lot quieter than a full jet engine. I would like to encourage you to proceed with the project and get behind it as you have in the past. Thank you. Russell Kroutter: I reside a 2868 Lower Lost Prairie Road in Marion at an airport called Carson Field. For thirty years I have been very interested in aviation both professionally early on and recreationally for quite a few years now. Back in the 70's I was a pilot with Stockhill Aviation. We did a lot more flying than Strand Aviation at that time. I can remember when Ron Bitney took his first flying lesson. I would just like to say there has been a lot of hard work put in by a very good Airport Board that you gentlemen have been II Kalispell City Airport Project - Public Hearing for the Final Feasibility/Master Plan Study October 4, 1999 responsible for putting in place. They are working to promote and improve an asset to this community that has been here for a long time and frankly has been neglected for a long time. So I would encourage you to give them the benefit of the doubt where that may be necessary and if there are problems, let them work those problems out and encourage them to do so. Mayor Boharksi: Does anyone care to speak as an opponent to the plan? Seeing none are there any questions from the Council at this time? Question: When would we expect to see this back here? Answer: What I would suspect would happen is that these comments will be entered into the record and added as an addendum to the Plan and I would expect that at our next meeting we would adopt or accept the plan as a completed Feasibility Study. From there we obviously will need to make the decision as to which route to take and how to proceed. At some point we do need to formally accept the plan as it was developed over the last several years. Mayor Boharski: Tim mention the possibility of accepting public comments over the next two weeks? Answer: Yes, you would just accept comments for the next two weeks and they would be included in the record. Those comments should be mailed to: Morrison-Maierle, Inc. c/o Tony Feilzer 28 Whitefish State Road Kalispell, MT 59901 Mayor Boharski: That being the case, we will close the public hearing on the Kalispell City Airport. 12 WRITTEN COMMENTS I Oct-18-99 08:04A Morrison-Maiovle {4'06) 752-2391 P.02 'I d GE( RGE K . DACHS P°iO Summit Hidrs Urlvd KvIisnell, Yont&ns' 01. Kalispell t;ity t,ounci.l; Septer„hrr 9, J 999 Having, missed your council meeting of 0 t1iipt-11 oper 4, 139 to protest your spending taxpayer money on the City Airport this written protest Is hf,reby siibmitted. 'fang people feel l.he city airport is to cl one to residential and businnsa areas to be safe. in recent yours accidents have oc- curred but, fortunately, none inTolve d retidntial or h113i_Mn3 u3 structures. I understand one plane crahIn ed a ballfield near the airport which, at that day rind time, W819 vacant. That ball - field 17.9s rnw been moved and a l.ar ;e office as replaefid it. An- other ucci,rierlt oocltrrc;d on the landing, strip i tanl.f more recently. There 9re many re zideznts who Seel, evan thc�ulh like myself did not show up at your October 4 meeting to protest i, al ? three options in a recent study for the airport are- not good Iptir,ns. With my train- ing grid flying experience in the TT.S. TInvy diiri niz World War 2, it is my opinion the airport In Its present loonti n could rea>>lt in a horendous accident, with mi.ich destrttetion Hn� 1c,sa of humnn liven. For the conventencc'�ocal and non -local flyer,s, Another excellent 91rpor.t, e)ne alroady FICA approved, and much afer, is available !last several miles North of KaJ.lspell; the Mac:ie International Airport. Fconomicall y does Kalispell have the ri ­ela). re.nources to proceed vilth either of the fivnt two options for the cr)ntimiect -aain- tenance r>f the third option.. It i9 ?ny underltandinir the city land between Highwa,! 93 S and the airport has %iea srAvertised fc_ir r.el a withmit any takers. The money from this ,al. waslisto be iisr.,d to fi- nRno5 the otitinri telec;t6d. The people and t biriesiseq near the airport in its present location are not the o3 who pay all the maintenance Rn(t insurance costs; most of thia Is plaid by the tsx- payera in Kalispell thoiiph not benifittinF, p ,:iortioriat;ely. The use of the Clpcier -international Airport woiilll conceivahly rednee, or possibly eliminates, of the ai,rp,'?rt e . ienae. Hrim )()rig time residents ere now moving out of Kalispell due to ciir'ront tares t; ',ey cannot afford. Tkie busiest an(t most popular ''Ai.rport in M. )ntaria shoij)d k)ay the expon9es frori income from tho9 who Ilse it., licit l.v t1'ioee e1.reedy ever -taxed reBidents who henefi little by it. The desire by the merchants and people wno aase the eirport to imrirovo or keep the airport is under steridable. ThAy ti'nf)e{ir 9inC!E?re in this .regard. But let them w plotap the till) tier t i' _ :jirport. , hat T 5 not erlrlr�,7 y olear is what re8aon rior.t' pF'o1)le In X,91.1 spel l ifgiven ea :hence to vote on it,would vote fo , A 61 mill.ie�ri tax In- crease'? A bit sei fish question here Is! Yfhs is in this 1'nr the taXj1ayer, tither than the rotcnt{al for a pore' doizs accicierit'? Thr.refore, It is my request that the dec lion te+ ael ect or re- je-lc;t ally or 61.1 of the option3 to continue or improve the Kelispe)-1 City Airport he ptit to A vote of the Kali.spel. ta3xpaye rs, 8 Cer®ly, t -re org R . Da c s Aug. 18, 1999 To the Editor: While manning the Kalispell visitor information booth, "fly -in" visitors voiced concern over the dangers of an airport at the present location. This is a residential and commercially dense area. There are many problems. The airport has no room to expand, and the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) has indicated a larger facility will be needed by 2003. A select group has convinced the city council to continue funding the airport. Some responsible members of the council question these expenses, but most disregard the FAA's recommendations. The recent Master Plan study, paid for by taxpayers, shows that a new location for the airport would be the best investment for Kalispell. The present, publicly -owned site would be best used by building a community center, including an auditorium, indoor sports facilities, and a convention center. The residents of Kalispell have shown their support for a project of this type. Unfortunately, the likelihood of a dome at the comer of Reserve and Hwy 93 is slim. The on -going problem of "managed news" by our local media results in the public being misinformed or uninformed about the issues surrounding the use of this public property. The "news" reflects only those self-serving members of the airport advisory board. At the Aug. 9, council work session, the chairman of the advisory board proclaimed there are 35,000 landings and take -offs every year (106 per day, every day!) He also said Senators Bums and Baucus and Representative Hill would seek federal funding for this project. This is not accurate. The FAA has indicated that any improvements to the current airport will not receive federal funds, because it does not meet FAA regulations. Hopefully, the council will vote on principal, not politics and plan for a future that encompasses all residents, not the "special interest" few. Carl Feig Kalispell September 14, 1999 Letter to the Editor A "letter to the editor" of 9/2, responding to another earlier letter regarding Kalispell City Airport, was anticipated. The member of the Montana Pilot's Association again clearly illustrates the obvious point: the local members want $1 million plus taxpayer dollars for their own leisure pursuits in contrast to the ever present need and desire of the entire population base for a community center that would put the remaining 77 acres to the highest and best use. This use would not produce liabilities but would rather be an asset to our city, compatible with the present, established properties. While airports are a necessity today to any community, we already have a viable, thriving Glacier Park International airport. The present facilities serve only a comparable few. The response of 9/2 refers to "two groups of thousands" needs to be substantiated before it even becomes logical. Supposedly representing "positive personal interests" has not been determined since the total public has not been fully informed or are misinformed by our "managed" news media. To this time, surrounding communities have not voiced the need for a city airport, but rather have been clearly heard from regarding their wants and needs for a community center including an auditorium, convention center, .indoor sports facilities, and a location for a YMCA. These facilities would benefit so many that live in this beautiful God-given area utilizing the facilities where they could enjoy functions of artistic expression. Let the motivation be expressed so that our tax dollars benefit all and be useful year around rather than the select few who get our money to subsidize their Sunday afternoon pleasures. Carl Feig Kalispell 752-0552 October 8, 1999 To: Mayor Bill Boharski Chris Kukulski, City Manager Present Kalispell City Council Members City Hall, Kalispell, Montana Subject: Kalispell City Airport Although with neither now or in the past any political or financial agenda, it is felt that an expression regarding the above subject is urgently needed. An all too evident fact that this beautiful area has not now or previously shown examples of good planning, the need is apparent with an ever unplanned growth in population from everywhere. The fact that of the original deeded 137 acres, only 77 remain, the balance having been sold off for various reasons to invest additional monies regardless of source, calling it tax increment, urban development or FA.A frundirg; it is still tax revenues and should represent all of the population of this area. To improve the "landing strip" with one plan or another would still not alter the location or most of the surrounding liabilities. This acreage should and could, with consideration of alternative initiatives, be put to a higher and better, all year -around use. The final product, after the present considered expenditures, would have only a limited life expectancy, serving only a select few rather forever serving many. Compromises do not solve inherent problems and once begun, run amok. If ownership of the Kalispell City Airport were obtained by the vocal proponents, would the successes of that ownership be enjoyed as has been alleged by the present circumstances? Consider mortgage payments, interest and taxes, would this property still be as attractive to a private business as it is now for the Aviation Board? In closing, I encourage the decision -makers to vote on principle not politics or assertions by the Airport Advisory Council. A concerned citizen -at -large, Carl Feig Please see attachments [ � � , � ♦ , 1 �" � �,� \1 • r � ♦ � VICINITY MAP AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN AT KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT KALISPELL, INDEX OF SHEETS SHEET TITLE TITLE SHEET AIRPORT LAYOUT DRAWING AIRSPACE DRAWING INNER PORTION OF THE APPROACH SURFACE MONTANA SHEET N0, 1 2 3 4 LOCATION MAP 9u99a 1 Mlz owe a Mm r r � � N V 1. J N > J Q O W � U 0_ N I Y ,I HATCH PATTERN LEGEND NONSTANDARD COME- -1 -ITION RUNWAY DATA RINW 13-31 -CMME (U-M-PH,U -.-HER) 93-6 -T T . . 0- 1.). -lm 11- -1 RU-1 LCKT�__ 1- -11 IA A(NPQ A -E 1. , I IRI I FM APPROVAL LEGEND + ---- IECI- RUN- M- F&�N RCII-I - - ---------- Sm iwr, 772,", ALL - WEATHERLlS`WLN`D CRITOYSE COVERAGE WIND COVERAGE �2 T. I T .- 2 --T --T--1 �VRUCTIONS .0 77 SUR14CI _o. o w, I—. TYPICAL 9VIL ARPORT IMAGINARY 5URFACE —Al cou— LEGEND ATTACHMENTS vi 1 Morrison-Maierle, Inc. 910 Helena Avenue Helena, MT 59601 AUGUST 1999 The preparation of this document was financed in part through a plamling grant from the Federal Aviation Administration as provided under Section 505 of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982. The Contents do not necessarily reflect the official view or policy of the FAA. Acceptance of this report by the FAA does not in any way constitute a commitment on the part of the United States to participate in any development depicted therein nor does it indicate that the proposed development is environmentally acceptable with appropriate public laws. Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study September 1999 F- Table 10 - Summary of Environmental Impacts Environmental Impact Category Existing Site "Generic' Site Noise Low Low Compatible Land Use Low Low Social Impacts Potential Potential Induced Socio-Economic Impacts Low Low Air Quality Potential Low Water Quality Low Low DOT Section 4(fl Land Potential Low Historic, Architectural, Archeological and Cultural Resources Potential Low Biotic Communities (Flora -Fauna) Low Low Endangered and Threatened Species Low Low Wetlands Potential Low Flood Plains Low Low Coastal Zone Management Program N/A N/A Coastal Barriers N/A N/A Wild and Scenic Rivers Low Low Farmland Low Low Energy Supply and Natural Resources Low Low Light Emissions Low Low Solid Waste Impacts Low Low Construction Impacts Low Low Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study September 1999 approaches. (ii) 2,000 feet for that end of a utility runway with a nonprecision instrument approach. (2) The approach surface extends for a horizontal distance of- (i) 5,000 feet at a slope of 20:1 for all utility and visual runways. (ii) 10,000 feet at a slope of 34:1 for all non -precision instrument runways other than utilities. (e) Transitional surface - these surfaces extend outward and upward at right angles to the runway centerline and the runway centerline extended at a slope of 7 to 1 from the sides of the primary surface and from the sides of the approach surfaces. DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES Of the five alternatives identified above, none have been eliminated due to obvious shortcomings. Drawings depicting each alternative are included in Appendix D. A short description of each alternative follows: Alternative #1 - "Existing Alignment, B-II" This alternative expands the existing facilities to a B-II airport standards as outlined in (AC) 15015300-13, Airport Design. It would specifically require the acquisition of approximately 54 acres in order to protect runway and taxiway safety areas, runway and taxiway object free areas, and runway protection zones for a 75' x 4,700' runway (ultimate length). The FAA may require the city purchase all the land by itself, then seek reimbursement as a precondition of its participation in airport development. Some of the drawbacks of this alternative are 1) There is a residential area inside the exterior boundaries of the ultimate RPZ of Runway 31; and 2) There are a number of businesses in the US Highway 93 corridor that would be adversely impacted by this alternative. It is presumed that the KGEZ radio towers would be either removed or otherwise positively reduced as an obstruction to air navigation. Detailed cost estimates are included in Appendix C. The total and local share costs of the essential items, of this alternative are $8,577,000 and $1,705,000, (best case). 54 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study September 1999 Alternative #2 - "5 ° Realignment, B-II" This alternative also expands the existing facilities to meet FAA B-II standards and would also fulfill FAA requirements to possibly obtain federal participation for airport improvement projects. It would require the acquisition of approximately 78 acres to protect runway and taxiway safety areas, object free areas and runway RPZs for a 75' x 4700' runway (ultimate length). The Federal Aviation Administration may at its option participate in this alternative. It should be understood that the City of Kalispell may be required to acquire all land at its own expense as a pre -condition of FAA participation. The benefits to this alignment as compared to Alternative #1 are: 1) The alignment removes the residential area from the future RPZ on the south end that is included in the Alternative #1 alignment, 2) the alignment would improve the impacts to the properties along the Highway 93 corridor. It is also presumed in this Alternative, that the KGEZ radio towers would be either removed or otherwise positively reduced as an obstruction to air navigation. Detailed cost estimates are included in Appendix C. The total and local share costs of the essential items, of this alternative are $6,450,000 and $1,492,000, respectively. Alternative #3 - "$I Million, B-I" The "$1 Million" alternative is based on the instructions from the Kalispell City Council to provide a list of possible airport improvements and major rehabilitation projects in the $1 million range. All improvements under this alternative are 100% city financed and presumed that after the improvements are made, the airport would meet the minimum design standards for a B-I Small Aircraft Exclusively airport as outlined in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13, Airport Design. The projects that would be included under this alternative would be: 55 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study September 1999 Land acquisition to meet B-I Small Aircraft criteria $204,000 Runway Pavement Rehabilitation, 60' x 3,600' $298,000 Electrical System Rehabilitation $122,000 Airport Fence $25,000 2-box Precision Approach Path Indicator $25,000 New 10,000 SY Apron $154,000 TOTAL $1,004,000 Plus 25% for engineering and contingencies S251,000 GRAND TOTAL $1,255,000 Detailed cost estimates are included in Appendix C. Under this alternative the Runway Protection Zones would remain unprotected, and the KGEZ radio towers would remain an obstruction in the approach of Runway 31. Alternative #4 - "Generic Location" B-II The "generic" location is a notional alternative that does not exist in a specific location, rather, it is based on the assumption that a site exists inside an eight -mile radius of Kalispell which meets all the design geometry, environmental and airspace requirements outlined in FAA Advisory Circular 15015300-13, Airport Design and the FAR Part 77 outlined above. It presumes that such a site could be found that would be better than the existing site. It is important to note that if this alternative is favored, a complete site selection study would be to determine an specific site, which would be favorable. It also is important to note that any benefits provided by this alternative would be diluted by distance from Kalispell. The estimated cost of development at a remote site is $3,777,000, with a local share of $1,221,000. Detailed cost estimates are included is Appendix C. Alternative #5 - "No Development" The "No Development" alternative is one that is generally required in all environmental studies. In this case the "no development" alternative is characterized by limited spending at present levels to maintain existing facilities on a year by year basis. Pavement will be patched and perhaps sealed, but no overlays or comprehensive rehabilitative efforts are planned. Also the facility shortcomings noted in other chapters (OFA's, RPZ's, etc.) would remain in place. 56 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study September 1999 Owner User Support Table 25 Owner/User Support Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 "Existing 4450 "$1 million" "Generic "No Alignment, Realignment Location, Development B-II" B-II" B-I 1341" " Kalispell 2 5 4 1 3 City Council Kalispell 4 5 3 1 2 City Airport Advisory Committee Rank 4 5 3 1 2 Owner/user support is determined by two components: the support of the Kalispell City Council and support of the Kalispell City Airport Advisory Committee. At the time of this draft, the City Council has not been polled for its support of each alternative, and in the absence of their input full weight was given to the consensus of the Kalispell City Airport Advisory Council, as determined from the polling on May 12, 1999. On November 1, 1999 the Kalispell City Council adopted a resolution adopting this master plan study and designated Alternative #2 the preferred alternative. EVALUATIONS OF THE ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1 - Existing Site, B-II Development The key components of this site alternative are: 1. The existing runway alignment is used and extended. 2. The threshold of Runway 13 would be relocated 900 feet south along its axis, as would the threshold of Runway 31. 3. Land is acquired to meet B-II lateral dimensions. 4. The airfield is cleared to meet B-II lateral dimensions. 5. A mid -field apron is included. 6. A full length parallel taxiway west of the runway would be included. 7. The FAA may potentially participate in up to 90% of the costs under certain conditions. 8. The KGEZ radio towers will be reduced as an obstruction. 73 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE 1 FUNDING SCENARIO A Proposed Schedule of Near Term Developments Year Description Cost' 2000 Environmental Assessment $60,000 2001 KGEZ tower Relocation Land Acquisition of Phase I land, plus 15% for Administration, Appraisals, Negotiation, Legal Fees $753,000 $1,910,000 $1,910,000 $1,910,000 2002 2003 Subtotal of Near Term Capital Improvement Costs $6,543,000 Proposed Schedule of Mid Term Developments 2005 Constrict Runway (75' x 3,600'), Full Parallel Taxiway (60' x 3,600') Connecting Taxiway (3 x 60' x 180'), and Apron (27,400 SY), Install Base Mounted Medium Intensity Runway Lights System, Beacon, Windcone, Segmented Circle, Lighted Hold Signs, Regulators, R/C Controllers and duct -encased cables $1,804,000 2006 Hangar Taxiway Complex Development Hangar Development Utilities (Make Sanitary Sewer, Water, Telephone and Electricity available) $110,000 $125,000 Subtotal of Mid Tenn Capital Improvement Costs $2,039,000 Proposed Schedule of Long Term Developments 2010 Hangar Taxiway Complex $ 110,000 FBO Development Utilities (Make Sanitary Sewer, Water, Telephone and Electricity available) $85,000 2015 Runway/Taxiway Extension to 4,300 feet, with lighting improvements $250,000 2017 Apron Expansion $260,000 Subtotal of Long Term Capital Improvement Costs $705,000 GRAND TOTAL OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS $9,287,000 Estimated costs not adjusted for inflation. DETAIL A-1, FUNDING SCENARIO A, ALTERNATE 1 Kalispell City Airport Funding Senario A is full Federal Aviation Administration funding for eligible Improvements Alternate 1 is development exising facility along existing alignment to B-II Lateral Dimensions, 3,600 foot runway length initial development, additional 700 feet subsequent development. YEAR 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Revenue Consolidated Airport Fees 16,900 16,900 16,900 19,100 19,100 19,100 19,100 19,100 26,200 26,200 26,200 26,200 26.200 31,300 31,300 31,300 31.300 31,300 36,900 36,900 Land Sale (Daley 1 and 3) 1,200,000 FAA Grant 54,000 5,159,250 1,623,400 99,000 99,000 225,000 234,000 State Grant 3,000 15,000 State Loan 45,000 General Obligation Bonds Sale Subtotal of Revenue 1,273,900 16,900 16,900 5,178,350 19.100 1,642,500 178,100 19,100 26,200 26,200 125,200 26,200 26,200 31,300 31,300 256,300 31,300 265,300 36,900 36,900 ro merits CE oalIm nAssessment 60,000 Tower Relocation 753,000 Land Acquisition (Phase I and II) 1,910,000 1,910,000 1,910,000 Runwaylfaxiway/Apron/Electrical 1,804,000 Hangar Taxiway Development 110,000 Hangar Utilities 125,000 Hangar Taxiway Development 110,000 FBO Utitlities 85,000 Runway/faxiway/Apron/Electrical 250,000 Extension to 4,300 feet Apron 260,000 Subtotal of Capital Improvements 60,000 2,663.000 1,910,000 1,910,000 0 1,804,000 235,000 0 D 0 195,000 0 0 0 0 250,000 0 260,000 0 0 Consolidated O-M Expenses 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,D00 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 Debt Service State Loan Annual Payment 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,316 Stale Loan Principal Payment 3,750 3,900 4,056 4,218 4,387 4,562 4,745 4,935 5,132 5,315 State Loan Interest Payment 1,800 1,650 1,494 1,332 1,162 988 805 615 418 0 State Loan Balance 45.000 41,250 37,350 33,294 29,076 24,689 20,126 15,381 10,447 5,315 0 G.O. Bonds Annual Payment G.O. Bonds Principal Payment G.O. Bonds Interest Payment G.O. Bonds Balance Combined Annual Payment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,315 0 0 0 Expected Airport Revenue 1,273,900 16,900 16,900 5,178,350 19,100 1,642,500 178,100 19,100 26,200 26,200 125,200 26,200 26,200 31,300 31,300 256,300 31,300 265,300 36,900 36,900 Capital lmprovments (60,000) (2,663,000) (1,910,000) (1,910,000) 0 (1,804,000) (235,000) 0 0 0 (195,000) 0 0 0 0 (250,000) 0 (260,000) 0 0 Consolidated O-M Expenses (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31.000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31.000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) Combined Annual Payment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (5,550) (5,550) (5,550) (5,550) (5,550) (5,550) (5,550) (5,550) (5,550) (5,315) 0 0 0 Ari Budget Surplus(Deficit) 1,182,900 (2,677,100) (1,924,100) 3,237,350 (11,900) (192,500) (87,900) (17,450) (10,350) (10,350) (106,350) (10,350) (10,350) (5,250) (5,250) (30,250) (5,015) (25,700) 5,900 5,900 Analysis: The taxpayers of the City of Kalispell would support Kalispell City Airport operations, maintenance, and capital improvements to a cost of $698,115 over the course of the twenty year study period. I ne distributed costs or mis support is �3 ,vub per year, or t.m, mills, assuming') aaa Value or yzu,- per mill. G.O. Bond Burden is $0.00 or 0.00 Mills per year. Notes: Additional Tax Burden is $34,905.75 or 1.69 Mills per year. State Grants and Loans shown herein are purely speculative, and shown only to demonstrate availability of the these programs. This is not to be construed as a guaranteed level of funding or even that state participation is likely. Sale of General Obligation Bonds is explored here, however, it is recognized that any sale would require voter approval. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE 1 FUNDING SCENARIO B Proposed Schedule of Near Term Developments Year Description Cost' 2000 Environmental Assessment $60,000 2001 KGEZ tower Relocation Land Acquisition of Phase I and Phase II land acquisition, plus 15% for Administration, Appraisals, Negotiation, Legal Fees $753,000 $1,910,000 $1,910,000 $1,910,000 2002 2003 Subtotal of Near Term Capital Improvement Costs $6,543,000 Proposed Schedule of Mid Term Developments 2005 Constrict Runway (75' x 3,600'), Full Parallel Taxiway (60' x 3,600') Connecting Taxiway (3 x 60' x 180'), and Apron (27,400 SY), Install Base Mounted Medium Intensity Runway Lights System, Beacon, Windcone, Segmented Circle, Lighted Hold Signs, Regulators, R/C Controllers and duct -encased cables $1,804,000 2006 Hangar Taxiway Complex Development Hangar Development Utilities (Make Sanitary Sewer, Water, Telephone and Electricity available) $110,000 $125,000 Subtotal of Mid Tenn Capital Improvement Costs S2,039,000 Proposed Schedule of Long Term Developments 2010 Hangar Taxiway Complex $110,000 FBO Development Utilities (Make Sanitary Sewer, Water, Telephone and Electricity available) $85,000 2018 Phase II Land Acquisition $69,000 2018 Runway/Taxiway Extension to 4,300 feet, with lighting improvements $250,000 2017 Apron Expansion $260,000 Subtotal of Long Tenn Capital Improvement Costs $774,000 GRAND TOTAL OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS $9,356,000 Estimated costs not adjusted for inflation. DETAIL B-1, FUNDING SCENARIO B, ALTERNATE 1 Kalispell City Airport Funding Senano B is full Federal Aviation Administration funding for eligible Improvements except land acquisition and KGEZ towers. Alternate 1 is development exising facility along existing alignment to B-11 Lateral Dimensions, 3,600 foot runway length initial development, additional 700 feet subsequent development. YEAR 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Revenue Consolidated Airport Fees 16,900 16,900 16.900 19,100 19,100 19,100 19,100 19,100 26,200 26,200 26,200 26,200 26,200 31.300 31,300 31,300 31,300 31,300 36,900 36,900 Land Sale (Daley 1 and 31 1,200,000 FAA Grant 54,000 1,623,400 99,000 99.000 225,000 234.000 State Grant 3,000 15,000 Siate Loan 45,000 Genaral Obligation Bonds Sale 4,702,500 Subtotal of Revenue 1,273,900 4.719,400 16,900 19,100 19,100 1,642,500 178,100 19,100 26,200 26,200 126,200 26,200 26,200 31,300 31,300 256,300 31,300 265,300 36,900 36,900 Ca ital Im ro merits Environmental Assessment 60,000 Tower Relocation 753,000 Land Acquisition (Phase I and 11) 1,910,000 1,910,000 1,910,000 69,000 Runway/Taxiway/Apron/Electrical 1,804,000 Hangar Taxiway Development 110.000 Hangar Utilities 125.000 Hangar Taxiway Development 110,000 FBO Utilities 85,000 Runway/Taxiway/Apron/Electrical 250,000 Extension to 4,300 feet Apron 260,000 Subtotal of Capital Improvements 60,000 2,663,000 1,910,000 1,910,000 0 1,804,000 235,000 0 0 0 195,000 0 0 0 69,000 250,000 0 250,000 0 0 Consolidated O-M Expenses 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31.000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 Debt Service State Loan Annual Payment 5,550 5,650 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,315 State Loan Pnncipal Payment 3,750 3,900 4,056 4,218 4,387 4,562 4,745 4,936 5,132 5,315 State Loan Interest Payment 1,800 1,650 1,494 1,332 1,162 988 805 615 418 0 State Loan Balance 45,000 41,250 37,350 33,294 29,076 24,689 20,126 15,381 10,447 5,315 0 G.O. Bonds Annual Payment 443.883 443.883 443,883 443,883 443,883 443,683 443,883 443,883 443,863 443,883 443,883 443.883 443,883 443.883 443,883 443,883 443,883 443,883 G.O. Bond Payment Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 G.O. Bonds Principal Payment 114.708 122.737 131,329 140,522 150.358 160,884 172,145 184,196 197,089 210,885 225,647 241,443 258,344 276,428 295,778 316.482 338,636 362,341 G.O. Bonds Interest Payment 329,175 321,145 312,554 303,361 293,524 282,999 271,737 259,687 246,793 232,997 218,235 202,440 185,539 167,455 148,105 127,400 105,247 81,542 G.O.Bonds Balance 4,702,500 4,587.792 4,465,055 4,333,726 4,193,204 4,042,846 3,881,962 3,709,817 3,525,621 3,328,532 3,117,647 2,891,999 2,650,566 2,392,213 2.115,785 1,820,007 1,503,525 1,164,889 802,548 Combined Annual Paymant 0 0 443,883 443,883 443,883 443,883 443,883 449,433 449,433 449,433 449,433 449,433 449,433 449,433 449,433 449.433 449,198 443,883 443,883 443,883 Expected Airport Revenue 1,273,900 4,719,400 16,900 19,100 19,100 1,642,500 178,100 19,100 26,200 26,200 125,200 26,200 26,200 31,300 31,300 256,300 31,300 265,300 36,900 36,900 Capital lmprovments (50,000) (2,663,000) (1,910,000) (1,910,000) 0 (1,804,000) (235,000) 0 0 0 (195,000) 0 0 0 (69,000) (250,000) 0 (260,000) 0 0 Consolidated O-M Expenses (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) Combined Annual Payment 0 0 (443,883) (443,883) (443,883) (443,883) (443,883) (449,433) (449,433) (449,433) (449,433) (449,433) (449,433) (449,433) (449,433) (449,433) (449,198) (443,883) (443,883) (443,883) Annul Budget Surplus(De6cft) 1,182,900 2,025,400 (2,367,983) (2,365,783) (455,783) (636,383) (531,783) (461,333) (454,233) (454,233) (550,233) (454,233) (454,233) (449,133) (518,133) (474,133) (448,898) (469,583) (437,983) (437,983) Analysis: The taxpayers of the City of Kalispell would support Kalispell City Airport operations, maintenance, and capital improvements to a cost of $9,213,754 over the course of the twenty year study period. suppun is o p- "I" vi ce.�w niiii xaummy .nyn value ui aeu, io per ....... G.O. Bond Burden is $443,882.73 o - 21.53 Mills peryear. Additional Tax Burden is $16,804.98 or 0.82 Mills peryear. State Grants and Loans shown herein are purely speculative, and shown only to demonstrate availability of the these programs. This is not to be construed as a guaranteed level of funding or even that state participation is likely. Sale of General Obligation Bonds is explored here, however, it is recognized that any sale would require voter approval. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE 1 FUNDING SCENARIO C Proposed Schedule of Near Term Developments Year Description Cost, 2000 Environmental Assessment $60,000 2001 KGEZ tower Relocation Land Acquisition of Phase I and Phase II land acquisition, plus 15% for Administration, Appraisals, Negotiation, Legal Fees $7,530 $1,910,000 $1,910,000 $1,910,000 2002 2003 Subtotal of Near Term Capital Improvement Costs $5,797,530 Proposed Schedule of Mid Term Developments 2005 Construct Runway (75' x 3,600'), Full Parallel Taxiway (60' x 3,600') Connecting Taxiway (3 x 60' x 180'), and Apron (27,400 SY), Install Base Mounted Medium Intensity Runway Lights System, Beacon, Windcone, Segmented Circle, Lighted Hold Signs, Regulators, R/C Controllers and duct -encased cables $1,804,000 2006 Hangar Taxiway Complex Development Hangar Development Utilities (Make Sanitary Sewer, Water; Telephone and Electricity available) $110.000 $125,000 Subtotal of Mid Tenn Capital Improvement Costs S2,039,000 Proposed Schedule of Long Term Developments 2010 Hangar Taxiway Complex $110 000 FBO Development Utilities (Make Sanitary Sewer, Water, Telephone and Electricity available) $85,000 2014 Phase II Land Acquisition $69,000 2015 Runway/Taxiway Extension to 4,300 feet, with lighting improvements $250,000 2017 Apron Expansion $260,000 Subtotal of Long Term Capital Improvement Costs $774,000 GRAND TOTAL OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS $8,610,530 Estimated costs not adjusted for inflation. DETAIL C-1, FUNDING SCENARIO C, ALTERNATE 1 Kalispell City Airport Funding Berard C is full Federal Aviation Administration funding for eligible Improvements KGEZ towers up to the level of federal participation in Generic Site. Alternate 1 is development exising facility along existing alignment to B-II Lateral Dimensions, 3,600 foot runway length initial development, additional 700 feet subsequent development. YEAR 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 2016 2017 2018 2019 Revenue Consolidated Airport Fees 16,900 16,900 16,900 19,100 19,100 19,100 19,100 19,100 26,200 26.200 26,200 26,200 26,200 31,300 31,300 31,300 31,300 31,300 36,900 36,900 Land Sale (Daley 1 and 3) 1,200,000 FAA Grant 54,000 828,000 1,623,400 99,000 99,000 225,000 234,000 State Grant 3,000 15,000 State Loan 45,000 General Obligation Bonds Sale 4,300,000 Subtotal of Revenue 1,273,900 4,316,900 16,900 847,100 19,100 1,642,500 178,100 19,100 26,200 26,200 125,200 26,200 26,200 31,300 31,300 256,300 31,300 265,300 36,900 36,900 Capital Improvments Environmental Assessment 60,000 Tower Relocation 753,000 Land Acquisition (Phase I and II) 1,910,000 1,910,000 1,910,000 69,000 Runway/Taxiway/Apron/Electrical 1,804,000 Hangar Taxiway Development 110,000 Hangar Utilities 125,000 Hangar Taxiway Development 110,000 FBO Utittlims 85,000 Runway/Taxiway/Apron/Electncal 250,000 Extension to 4,300 fee[ 260,000 Subtotal of Capital improvements 60,000 2,663,000 11910,000 1,910,000 0 1,804,000 235,000 0 0 0 195,000 0 0 0 69,000 250,000 0 260,000 0 0 Consolidated O-M Ex enses 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31.000 31,000 31,000 Debt Service State Loan Annual Payment 5,550 5,650 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,315 State Loan Principal Payment 3,750 3,900 4,056 4,218 4,387 4,562 4,745 4,935 5,132 5,315 State Loan Interest Payment 1.800 1,650 1,494 1,332 1,162 988 805 616 418 0 State Loan Balance 45,000 41,250 37,360 33,294 29,076 24,689 20,126 15,381 10,447 5,315 0 G.O. Bonds Annual Payment 405,890 405,890 405,890 405.890 405,890 405,890 405,890 405,890 405,890 405,890 406,890 405.890 405,890 405,890 405,890 405,890 405,890 405,890 G.O. Bond Payment Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 G.O. Bonds Principal Payment 104,890 112,232 120,088 128,494 137.489 147,113 157,411 168,430 180,220 192,835 206,334 220,777 236,237 252.768 270,461 289,394 309,651 331,327 G.O. Bonds Interest Payment 301,000 293,658 285,801 277,395 268,401 258,777 248.479 237,460 225,670 213,064 199,556 185,113 169,658 153,122 135:428 116:496 96,238 74,563 G.O. Bonds Balance 4,300,000 4,195,110 4,082,879 3,962,790 3,834,296 3,696,807 3,549,694 3,392,283 3,223,854 3,043,634 2,850,799 2,644,465 2,423'688 2.187,456 1,934,689 1,664,227 1,374,834 1,065,183 733,856 Combined Annual Payment 0 0 405,890 405,890 405,890 405,890 405,890 411,440 411,440 411,440 411,440 411,440 411,440 411,440 411.440 411,440 411,205 405,890 405,890 405,890 Expected Airport Revenue 1,273,900 4,316,900 16,900 847,100 19,100 1,642,500 178,100 19,100 26,200 26.200 125,200 26,200 26,200 31,300 31,300 256,300 31,300 265,300 36.900 36,900 Capitallmprovments (60,000) (2,663,000) (1,910,000) (1,910,000) 0 (1,804,000) (235.000) 0 0 0 (195,000) 0 0 0 (69,000) (250,000) 0 (260,000) 0 0 Consolidated O-M Expenses (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) (3t,000) (31,000) (31,000) (31,000) Combined Annual Payment 0 0 (405,890) (405,890) (405,890) (405,890) (405,890) (411,440) (411,440) (411,440) (411,440) (411,440) (411,440) (411,440) (411,440) (411,440) (411,206) (405,890) (405,890) (405,890) Annaul Budget Surplus(Deficit) 1,182,900 1,622,900 (2,329,990) (1,499,790) (417,790) (598,390) (493,790) (423,340) (416,240) (416,240) (512,240) (416,240) (416,240) (411,140) (480,140) (436,140) (410,905) (431,590) (399,990) (399,990) Analysis: The taxpayers of the City of Kalispell would support Kalispell City Airport operations, maintenance, and capital improvements to a cost of $8.104.377 over the course of the tweet, veer shidv eared ne aismourea costs or mis support is y40b,219 peryear, or 19.65 mills, assuming 1999 value of $20,618 per mill. G.O. Bond Burden is $405,889.58 or 19.69 Mills per year. Notes: Additional Tax Burden is ($670.71) or (0.03) Mills per year. State Grants and Loans shown herein are purely speculative, and shown only to demonstrate availability of the these programs. This is not to be construed as a guaranteed level of funding or even that state participation is likely. Sale of General Obligation Bonds is explored here, however, it is recognized that any sale would require voter approval. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE 2 FUNDING SCENARIO A Proposed Schedule of Neal- Term Developments Year Description Cost4 2000 Environmental Assessment $60,000 2001 KGEZ tower Relocation Land Acquisition of Phase I and Phase II land acquisition, plus 15% for Administration, Appraisals, Negotiation, Legal Fees $753,000 $1,202,000 $1,202,000 $1,202,000 2002 2003 Subtotal of Near Term Capital Improvement Costs $4,419,000 Proposed Schedule of Mid Term Developments 2005 Construct Runway (75' x 3,600'), Full Parallel Taxiway (60' x 3,600') Connecting Taxiway (3 x 60' x 180'), and Apron (27,400 SY), Install Base Mounted Medium Intensity Runway Lights System, Beacon, Windcone, Segmented Circle, Lighted Hold Signs, Regulators, R/C Controllers and duct -encased cables $1,804,000 2006 Hangar Taxiway Complex Development Hangar Development Utilities (Make Sanitary Sewer, Water, Telephone and Electricity available) $110,000 $125,000 Subtotal of Mid Term Capital Improvement Costs $2,039,000 Proposed Schedule of Long Term Developments 2010 Hangar Taxiway Complex $110,000 FBO Development Utilities (Make Sanitary Sewer, Water, Telephone and Electricity available) $85,000 2015 Runway/Taxiway Extension to 4,300 feet, with lighting improvements $250,000 2017 Apron Expansion $260,000 Subtotal of Long Term Capital Improvement Costs $705,000 GRAND TOTAL OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS $7,163,000 Estimated costs not adjusted for inflation. DETAIL A-2, FUNDING SCENARIO A, ALTERNATE 2 Kalispell City Airport Funding Senado A is full Federal Aviation Administration funding for eligible Improvements Alternate 2 is development exising facility with a 5-degree realignment to B-II Lateral Dimensions, 3,600 foot runway length initial development, additional 700 feet subsequent development. YEAR 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Revenue Consolidated Airport Fees 16,900 16,900 16,900 19,100 19,100 19,100 19,100 19,100 26,200 26,200 26,200 26,200 26.200 31,300 31,300 31,300 31.300 31,300 36,900 36,900 Land Sale (Daley 1 and 3) 1,200:000 FAA Grant 54,000 3.244,500 1,623,400 99,000 99,000 225,000 234,000 State Grant 3,000 15,000 State Loan 45,000 General Obligation Bonds Sale Subtotal of Revenue 1,273,900 16,900 16,900 3,263,600 19,100 1,642,500 178,100 19,100 26,200 26,200 125,200 26,200 26,200 31,300 31,300 256,300 31,300 265,300 36,900 36,900 Capital ITrovments Environmental Assessment 60,000 Tower Relocation 753,000 Land Acquisition (Phase I and II) 1,202,000 1,202,000 1,202,000 Runway/Taxiway/Apron/Electrical 1,804,000 Hangar Taxiway Development 110,000 Hangar Utilities 125,000 Hangar Taxiway Development 110,000 FBO Utitlities 85,000 Runway/Taxiway/Apron/Electrical 250,000 Extension to 4,300 feet Apron 260,000 Subtotal of Capital lm rovemen[s 60,000 1.955,000 1,202,000 1,202,000 0 1,804,000 235,000 0 0 0 195,000 0 0 0 0 250,000 0 260,000 0 0 Consolidated O-M Expenses 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 Debt Service State Loan Annual Payment 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,315 State Loan Principal Payment 3,750 3,900 4,056 4,218 4,387 4,562 4,745 4,935 5,132 5,315 State Loan Interest Payment 1,800 1,660 1,494 1,332 1,162 988 805 615 418 0 State Loan Balance 45,000 41,250 37,350 33,294 29,076 24,689 20,126 15,381 10,447 5,315 0 G.O. Bonds Annual Payment G.O. Bonds Principal Payment G.O. Bonds Interest Payment G.O. Bonds Balance Combined Annual Payment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,550 5550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5.315 0 0 0 Expects' Airport Revenue 1,273,900 16,900 16,900 3,263,600 19,100 1,642,500 178,100 19,100 26,200 26,200 125,200 26,200 26,200 31,300 31,300 256,300 31,300 265,300 36,900 36,900 Capital lmprovments (60,000) (1,955,000) (1,202,000) (1,202,000) 0 (1,804,000) (235,000) 0 0 0 (195,000) 0 0 0 0 (250,000) 0 (260,000) 0 0 Consolidated O-M Expenses (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33.000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) Combined Annual Payment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (5,550) (5,550) (5,550) (5,550) (5,550) (5,550) (5,550) (5,550) (5,550) (5,315) 0 0 0 Annaul Budget Surplus(Deficit) 1,180,900 (1,971,100) (1,218,100) 2,028,600 (13,900) (194,500) (89,900) (19,450) (12,350) (12,350) (108,350) (12,350) (12,350) (7,250) (7,250) (32,250) (7,015) (27,700) 3,900 3,900 nalysis: The taxpayers of the City of Kalispell would support Kalispell City Airport operations, maintenance, and capital improvements to a cost of $528,865 over the course of the twenty year study period. I ne nlstnoutea costs or this support is 41ti,44:1 per year, or 1.L6 mills, assuming 1999 value or SLu,bl6 per mill. G.O. Bond Burden is $0.00 or 0.00 Mills per year. Notes: Additional Tax Burden is $26,443.25 or 1.28 Mills per year. State Grants and Loans shown herein are purely speculative, and shown only to demonstrate availability of the these programs. This is not to be construed as a guaranteed level of funding or even that state participation is likely. Sale of General Obligation Bonds is explored here, however, it is recognized that any sale would require voter approval. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE 2 FUNDING SCENARIO B Proposed Schedule of Near Term Developments Year Description Cost' 2000 Environmental Assessment $60,000 2001 KGEZ tower Relocation Land Acquisition of Phase I land, plus 15% for Administration, Appraisals, Negotiation, Legal Fees $753,000 $1,095,000 $1,095,000 $1,095,000 2002 2003 Subtotal of Near Term Capital Improvement Costs $4,098,000 Proposed Schedule of Mid Term Developments 2005 Construct Runway (75' x 3,600`), Full Parallel Taxiway (60' x 3,600') Connecting Taxiway (3 x 60' x 180'), and Apron (27,400 SY), Install Base Mounted Medium Intensity Runway Lights System, Beacon, Windcone, Segmented Circle, Lighted Hold Signs, Regulators, R/C Controllers and duct -encased cables S 1,804,000 2006 Hangar Taxiway Complex Development Hangar Development Utilities (Make Sanitary Sewer, Water, Telephone and Electricity available) $110,000 $125,000 Subtotal of Mid Ten-1 Capital Improvement Costs $2,039,000 Proposed Schedule of Long Term Developments 2010 Hangar Taxiway Complex $110,000 FBO Development Utilities (Make Sanitary Sewer, Water, Telephone and Electricity available) $85,000 2014 Phase II land acquisition $319,000 2015 Runway/Taxiway Extension to 4,300 feet, with lighting improvements $250,000 2017 Apron Expansion $260,000 Subtotal of Long Tenn Capital Improvement Costs $1,024,000 GRAND TOTAL OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS $7,161,000 Estimated costs not adjusted for inflation. DETAIL B-2, FUNDING SCENARIO B, ALTERNATE 2 Kalispell City Airport Funding Senado B is full Federal Aviation Administration funding for eligible Improvements except land acquisition and KGEZ towers. Alternate 2 is development exising facility with a 5-degree realignment to B-II Lateral Dimensions, 3,600 foot runway length initial development, additional 700 feet subsequent development. YEAR 2D18 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2019 Revenue Consolidated Airport Fees 16,900 16,900 16,900 19,100 19,100 19,100 19,100 19,100 26,200 26,200 26,200 26,200 26,200 31,300 31,300 31,300 31,300 31,300 36,900 36,900 Land Sale (Daley 1 and 3) 1.200,000 FAA Grant 54,000 1,623,400 99,000 99,000 225,000 234,000 State Grant 3,000 15,000 State Loan 45,000 Genaral Obligation Bontls Sale 2,948,000 Subtotal of Revenue 1,273,900 2,964,900 16,900 19,100 19,100 1,642,500 178,100 19,100 26,200 26,200 125,200 26,200 26,200 31,300 31,300 256,300 31,300 265,300 36,900 36,900 Capital Ira meets DI Environmental Assessment 60,000 Tower Relocation 753,000 Land Acquisition (Phase I and II) 1,096,000 1,095,000 1,096,000 319,000 Runway7Taxiway/AprordElectdcal 1,804,000 Hangar Taxiway Development 110,000 Hangar Utilities 125,000 Hangar Taxiway Development 110,000 FBO Willits. 85,000 Runway/Taxiway/Apron/Electrical 250,000 Extension to 4,300 feet Apron 260,000 Subtotal of Capital Improvements 60,000 1,848,000 1,095,000 1.095,000 0 1,804,000 235,000 0 0 0 195,000 0 0 0 319,000 250,000 0 260,000 0 0 Consolidated O-M Expenses 33.000 33.000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33.000 33,000 Debt Service State Loan Annual Payment 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,315 State Loan Principal Payment 3,750 3,900 4,056 4,218 4,387 4,562 4,745 4,935 5,132 5,3t5 State Loan Interest Payment 1,800 1,650 1,494 1,332 1,162 988 805 615 418 0 State Loan Balance 45,000 41,250 37,350 33,294 29,076 24,689 20,126 15,381 10,447 5,315 0 G.O. Bonds Annual Payment 278,270 278,270 278,270 278,270 278,270 278,270 278,270 278,270 278,270 278,270 278,270 278,270 278,270 278,270 278,270 278,270 278.270 278.270 G.O. Bond Payment Number t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 G.O. Bonds Pdncipal Payment 71,910 76,944 82.330 88'093 94,260 100,858 107,918 115,472 123,655 132,204 141,451 151,361 161,956 173,293 185,423 198,403 212,291 227,151 G.O. Bonds Interest Payment 206,360 201,326 195,940 190,177 184,011 177,412 170,352 162,798 164,715 146,066 136,812 126,910 116,314 104,978 92,847 79,867 65,979 51,119 G.O. Bonds Balance 2,948,000 2,876,090 2,799,146 2,716,815 2,628,722 2,634,462 2,433,604 2,325,686 2,210,214 2,086,659 1,954,454 1,812,996 1,661,635 1,499,679 1,326,387 1,140,963 942,560 730,269 503,118 Combined Annual Payment 0 0 278,270 278,270 278,270 278,270 278,270 283,820 283,820 283,820 283,820 283,820 283,820 283,820 283,820 283,820 283,585 278,270 278,270 278,270 Expected Airport Revenue 1,273,900 2,964,900 16,900 19,100 19,100 1,642,500 178,100 19,100 26,200 26,200 125,200 26,200 26,200 31,300 31,300 256,300 31,300 265,300 36,900 36,900 Capital lmprovments (60,000) (1,848,000) (1,096,000) (1,095,000) 0 (1,804,000) 1235,000) 0 0 0 (195,000) 0 0 0 (319,000) (250,000) 0 1260,000) 0 0 Consolidated 0.M Expenses (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33:"0) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) Combined Annual Payment 0 0 (278,270) (278,270) (278,270) (278,270) (278,270) (283,820) (283,820) (283,820) (283,820) (283,820) (283,820) (283,820) (283,820) (283,820) (283,585) (278,270) (278.270) (278,270) Annuul Budget Surplus(Deficit) 1,180,900 1,083,900 (1,389,370) (1,387,170) (292,170) (472,770) 1368,170) (297,720) (290,620) (290,620) (386,620) 1290,620) (290,620) (285,520) (604,520) (310,520) (285,285) (305,970) (274,370) (274,370) nalysis: The taxpayers of the City of Kalispell would support Kalispell City Airport operations, maintenance, and capital improvements to a cost of $5,832,231 over the course of the twenty year study period. I he distributed Costs of this support Is y-,e1L peryear, er "14.14 mills, assuming l-Value or TLu,bib per mill. G.O. Bond Burden is $278,270.35 or 13.50 Mills per year. Notes: Additional Tax Burden is $13,341.22 or 0.65 Millsperyean State Grants and Loans shown herein are purely speculative, and shown only to demonstrate availability of the these programs. This is not to be construed as a guaranteed level of funding or even that state participation is likely. Sale of General Obligation Bonds is explored here, however, it is recognized that any sale would require voter approval. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE 2 FUNDING SCENARIO C Proposed Schedule of Near Term Developments Year Description Cost6 2000 Environmental Assessment $60,000 2001 KGEZ tower Relocation Land Acquisition of Phase I and Phase II land acquisition, plus 15% for Administration, Appraisals, Negotiation, Legal Fees $753,000 $1,095,000 $1,095,000 $1,095,000 2002 2003 Subtotal of Near Term Capital Improvement Costs $4,098,000 Proposed Schedule of Mid Term Developments 2005 Constrict Runway (75' x 3,600'), Full Parallel Taxiway (60' x 3,600') Connecting Taxiway (3 x 60' x 180'), and Apron (27,400 SY), Install Base Mounted Medium Intensity Runway Lights System, Beacon, Windcone, Segmented Circle, Lighted Hold Signs, Regulators, R/C Controllers and duct -encased cables $1,804,000 2006 Hangar Taxiway Complex Development Hangar Development Utilities (Make Sanitary Sewer, Water, Telephone and Electricity available) $110,000 $125,000 Subtotal of Mid Term Capital Improvement Costs $2,039,000 Proposed Schedule of Long Term Developments 2010 Hangar Taxiway Complex $110,000 FBO Development Utilities (Make Sanitary Sewer, Water, Telephone and Electricity available) $85,000 2014 Phase II land acquisition $319 000 2015 Runway/Taxiway Extension to 4,300 feet, with lighting improvements $250,000 2017 Apron Expansion $260,000 Subtotal of Long Tenn Capital Improvement Costs $1,024,000 GRAND TOTAL OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS $7,161,000 Estimated costs not adjusted for inflation. DETAIL C-2, FUNDING SCENARIO C, ALTERNATE 2 Kalispell City Airport Funding Senado C is full Federal Aviation Administration funding for eligible Improvements KGEZ towers up to the level of federal participation in Generic Site. Alternate 2 is development exising facility with a 6-degree realignment to B-II Lateral Dimensions, 3,600 foot runway length initial development, additional 700 feet subsequent development. YEAR 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Revenue Consolidated Airport Fees 16,900 16,900 16,900 19,100 19,100 19,100 19,100 19,100 26,200 26,200 26,200 26,200 26,200 31,300 31,300 31,300 31,300 31,300 36,900 36,900 Land Set. (Delay 1 and 3) 1,200,000 FAA Grant 54,000 828,000 1,624,000 99,000 99,000 225,000 234,000 State Grant 3,000 15,000 State Loan 45,000 General Obligation Bonds Sale 2,338,000 Subtotal of Revenue 1,273,900 2,354,900 16,900 847,100 19,100 1,643,100 178,100 19,100 26.200 26,200 125,200 26,200 26,200 31,300 31,300 256,300 31,300 265,300 36,900 36,900 Ca itel ImEntral nts Environmental Assessment 60,000 Tower Relocation 753:000 Land Acquisition (Phase I and 11) 1,095,000 1,095,000 1,095,000 319,000 Runway/Taxiway/Apron/Electrical 1,804,000 Hangar Taxiway Development 110,000 Hangar Utilities 125:000 Hangar Taxiway Development 110,000 FBO Utirdities 85,000 Runway/Taxiway/Apron/Electrical 250,000 Extension to 4,300 feet A con 260,000 Subtohal of Capital Improvements 60,000 1,848,000 1,095,000 1,095,000 0 1,804,000 236,000 0 0 0 195,000 0 0 0 319,000 250,000 0 260,000 0 0 Consolidated O-M Expenses 33.000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 Debt Service State Loan Annual Payment 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,315 State Loan Principal Payment 3,750 3,900 4.056 4,218 4,387 4,562 4,745 4,935 5,132 5,315 State Loan Interest Payment 1,800 1,650 1.494 1,332 1,162 988 805 616 418 0 State Loan Balance 45,000 41,250 37,350 33,294 29,076 24,689 20,126 .15,381 10,447 5,315 0 G.O. Bonds Annual Payment 220,691 220,691 220,691 220,691 220,691 220,691 220,691 220,6918 220,691 220,691 220,691 220,691 220,691 220,691 220,691 220,691 220,691 220,691 G.O. Bond Payment Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 G.O. Bonds Principal Payment 57,031 61,023 65,294 69,865 74,756 79,988 85,588 91,679 97,989 104,849 112,188 120,041 128,444 137,436 147,056 157,349 168,364 180,149 G.0. Bonds Interest Payment 163,660 759,668 155,396 150,828 145,935 140,702 135,103 129,112 122,701 115.842 108,503 100,650 92,247 83,256 73,635 63,341 52,327 40,541 G.0. Bonds Balance 2,338,000 2,280,969 2,219,947 2,754,652 2,084,787 2,010,032 1,930,043 1,844,455 1,752,877 1,654,887 1,550,039 1,437,851 1,317,810 1,189,366 1,051,931 904,875 747,526 679,162 399,013 Combined Annual Payment 0 a 220,691 220,691 220,691 220,691 220,691 226,241 226,241 226,241 226,241 226,241 226,241 226,241 226,241 226,241 226,006 220,691 220,691 220,691 Expected Airport Revenue 1,273,900 2,354,900 15,900 847,100 19,100 1,643,100 178,100 19,100 26,200 26200 125,200 26,200 26,200 31,300 31,300 256,300 31,300 265,300 36,900 36,900 Capital lmprovments (60,000) (1,848,000) (1,095,000) (1,095,000) 0 (1,804,000) (235,000) 0 0 0 (195,000) 0 0 0 (319,000) (250,000) 0 (260,000) 0 0 Consolidated O-M Expenses (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33.000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) Combined Annual Payment 0 0 (220,691) (220,691) (220,691) (220,691) (220,691) (226,241) (226,241) (226,241) (226,241) (226,241) (226,241) (226,241) (226,241) (226,241) (226,006) (220,691) (220,691) (220,691) Annaul Budget Surplus(Deficit) 1,180,900 473,900 (1,331,791) (501,591) (234,591) (414,591) (310,591) (240,141) (233,041) (233,041) (329,041) (233,041) (233,041) (227,941) (546,941) (252,941) (227,706) (248,391) (216,791) (216,791) Analysis: he taxpayers of the City of Kalispell would support Kalispell City Airport operations, maintenance, and capital improvements to a cost of $4,577,197 over the course of the twenty year study period. The distributed costs of MIS Support Is $226,650 per year, or 11.1 mills, assuming 1999 value of $20,518 per mill. G.O. Bond Burden is $220,690.66 or 10.70 Mills per year. Notes: Additional Tax Burden is $8,169.18 or 0.40 Mills per year. State Grants and Loans shown herein are purely speculative, and shown only to demonstrate availability of the these programs. This is not to be construed as a guaranteed level offunding or even that state participation is likely. Sale of General Obligation Bonds is explored here, however, it is recognized that any sale would require voter approval. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE 2 FUNDING SCENARIO D Proposed Schedule of Near Term Developments Year Description Cost' 2000 Environmental Assessment $60,000 2001 KGEZ tower Relocation Land Acquisition of Phase I and Phase II land acquisition, plus 15% for Administration, Appraisals, Negotiation, Legal Fees $753,000 $1,095,000 $1,095,000 $1,095,000 2002 2003 Subtotal of Near Tenn Capital Improvement Costs $4,098,000 Proposed Schedule of Mid Term Developments 2005 Constrict Runway (75' x 3,600'), Full Parallel Taxiway (60' x 3,600') Connecting Taxiway (3 x 60' x 180'), and Apron (27,400 SY), Install Base Mounted Medium Intensity Runway Lights System, Beacon, Windcone, Segmented Circle, Lighted Hold Signs, Regulators, R/C Controllers and duct -encased cables $1,804,000 2006 Hangar Taxiway Complex Development Hangar Development Utilities (Make Sanitary Sewer, Water, Telephone and Electricity available) $110,000 $125,000 Subtotal of Mid Term Capital Improvement Costs $2,039,000 Proposed Schedule of Long Term Developments 2010 Hangar Taxiway Complex $110,000 FBO Development Utilities (Make Sanitary Sewer, Water, Telephone and Electricity available) $85,000 2014 Phase II Land Acquisistion $319,000 2015 Runway/Taxiway Extension to 4,300 feet, with lighting improvements $250,000 2017 Apron Expansion $260,000 Subtotal of Long Term Capital Improvement Costs $1,024,000 GRAND TOTAL OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS $7,161,000 Estimated costs not adjusted for inflation. DETAIL D-2, FUNDING SCENARIO D, ALTERNATE 2 Kalispell City Airport Funding Scenano D is no Federal Participation in any phase of Airport Development. Alternate 2 is development exising facility with a 5-degree realignment to B-II Lateral Dimensions, 3,600 foot runway length initial development, additional 700 feet subsequent development. YEAR 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Revenue Consolidated Airport Fees 16,900 16,900 16,900 19,100 19,100 19.100 19.100 19,100 26,200 26,200 26,200 26,200 26,200 31,300 31,300 31,300 31,300 31,300 36,900 36,900 Land Sale (Daley 1 and 3) 1,200,000 FAA Grant State Grant 3,000 15,000 State Loan 45,000 Genaml Obli ation Bonds Sale 3,660,000 Subtotal of Revenue 1,219,900 3,666,900 16,900 19,100 19,100 19,100 79,100 19,100 26,200 26,200 26,200 26,200 26,200 31,300 31,300 31,300 31,300 31,300 36,900 36,900 Ca ital Impral Asseovme"I Environmentssment Tower Relocation 753000 Land Acquisition (Phase I and II) 1,095:000 1,095,000 1,095,000 319,000 Runway1Taxiway/Apmn/Electrira1 1,804,000 Hangar Taxiway Development 110,000 Hangar Utilities 126,000 Hangar Taxiway Development 110,000 FBO Ut'rtlities 85,000 Runway/Taxiway/Apron/Electrical 250,000 Extension to 4,300 feet A roil 260,000 Subtotal of Capital Improvements 0 1,848,000 1,095,000 1,096,000 0 1,804,000 235,000 0 0 0 195,000 0 0 0 319,000 250,000 0 260,000 0 0 Consolidated O-M Expenses 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33.000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 Debt Service State Loan Annual Payment 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,560 5,550 5,315 State Loan Principal Payment 3,750 3,900 4.056 4,210 4,387 4,562 4,745 4,935 5,132 5,315 State Loan Interest Payment 1,800 1,650 1,494 1,332 1,162 988 805 615 418 0 State Loan Balance 45,000 41,250 37,350 33.294 29,076 24,689 20,126 15,381 10,447 5,315 0 G.O. Bonds Annual Payment 344,534 336,130 327,931 319,932 312,128 304,514 297,086 289,839 282,769 275,871 269,142 262,577 256,172 249,923 243,827 237.879 232,077 (226,416) G.O. Bond Payment Number i 2 - 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 G.O. Bonds Principal Payment 89,034 92,943 97,023 101:182 115,728 110,370 115,215 120,273 125,553 131,065 136,818 142,824 149,094 155,640 162,472 169,605 177,050 184,823 G.O. Bonds Interest Payment 255,500 243,187 230,908 218,649 2.6,399 794,144 181,871 169,566 157,216 144,807 132,324 119,753 107,078 94,284 81,355 68,275 55,026 41,593 G.O. Bonds Balance 3,650,000 3,560'966 3,474,103 3,389,360 3,306,683 3,226,024 3,147,332 3,070,659 2,995,659 2,922,586 2,851,296 2,781,744 2,713,889 2,647,690 2,583,105 2,520,095 2,458,623 2,398,650 2,340,140 Combined Annual Paymant 0 0 344,534 336,130 327.931 319,932 312,128 310,064 302,636 295.389 288,319 281,421 274,692 268,127 261,722 255,473 249,142 237,879 232,077 (226,416) Expected Airport Revenue 1,219,900 3,666,900 16.900 19,100 19,100 19,100 79,100 19,100 26,200 26,200 26,200 26,200 26,200 31.300 31,300 31,300 31,300 31,300 36,900 36,900 Capital lmprovments 0 (1,848,000) (1,095,000) (1,095,000) 0 (1,804,000) (235,000) 0 0 0 (195,000) 0 0 0 (319,000) (250,000) 0 (260,000) 0 0 Consolidated O-M Expenses (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) (33,000) Combined Annual Payment 0 0 (344,634) (336,130) (327,931) (319,932) (312,128) (310,064) (302,636) (295,389) (288,319) (281,421) (274,692) (268,127) (261,722) (255,473) (249,142) (237,879) (232,077) 226,416 Annaul Budget Surplus(Deficit) 1,186,900 1,785,900 (1,465,634) (1,445,030) (341,831) (2,137,832) (501,028) (323,964) (309,436) (302,189) (490,119) (288,221) (281,492) (269,827) (582,422) (507,173) (250,842) (499,579) (228,177) 230,316 Analysis: The taxpayers of the City of Kalispell would support Kalispell City Airport operations, maintenance, and capital improvements to a cost of $7,011,680 over the course of the twenty year study period. I he distributed casts or this support is s-U'baa per year, or it mills, assuming 1- value or szu,blb per mill. G.O. Bond Burden is $344,534.18 or 16.71 Mills per year. Notes: Additional Tax Burden is $6,049.80 or 0.29 Mills peryear. State Grants and Loans shown herein are purely speculative, and shown only to demonstrate availability of the these programs. This is not to be construed as a guaranteed level of funding or even that state participation is likely. Sale of General Obligation Bonds is explored here, however, it is recognized that any sale would require voter approval. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE 3 FUNDING SCENARIO D i Proposed Schedule of Near Term Developments Year Description Cost' 2000 Land Acquisition $255,000 2001 Runway, Taxiway, Electrical Reconstruction $1,000,000 Subtotal of Near Term Capital Improvement Costs $1,255,000 GRAND TOTAL OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS $1,255,000 Estimated costs not adjusted for inflation. DETAIL D-3, FUNDING SCENARIO D, ALTERNATE 3 Kalispell City Almon Funding Scenario D is no Federal Participation in any phase of Airport Development. Alternate 3 is development of exising facility with along existing alignment to 5-1 Small Aircraft Only Lamm[ Dimensions, 3,600 foot runway length. YEAR 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Revenue Consolidated Airport Fees 16,900 16,900 16,900 19,100 19,100 19,100 19,100 19,100 26.200 26,200 26,200 26,200 26,200 31,300 31,300 31,300 31.300 31,300 36,900 36,900 Land Sale (Daley 1 and 3) 1,200:000 FAA Grant State Grant 3,000 15,000 State Loan 20,000 General Ob0gallon Bonds Sale Subtotal of Revenue 1,219,900 51,900 16,900 19,100 19,100 19,100 19,100 19,100 26,200 26,200 26,200 26,200 26.200 31,300 31,300 31,300 31.300 31,300 36,900 36,900 Ca ital Im rovments Environmental Assessment Tower Relocation Land Acquisition (Phase I and 11) 255,000 Runway/Taxiway/Aproo/Electrical 1,000,000 Hangar Taxiway Development Hangar Utilities Hangar Taxiway Development FBO Utitlities Runway/Taxiway/Apron/Electrical Extension to 4,300 feet Apron Subtotal ofCapital Improvements 255,000 1,000.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Consolidated 0-M Expenses 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 Debt Service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 State Loan Annual Payment 2,466 2,466 2,466 2,466 2,466 2,466 2,466 2,466 2,466 2,466 State Loan Principal Payment 1,666 1,732 1,802 1,874 1,949 2,027 2,108 2,192 2,280 2,371 State Loan Interest Payment 800 733 664 592 517 439 358 274 186 95 State Loan Balance 20,000 18,334 16,602 14,800 12,926 10,977 8,951 6,843 4.651 2,371 0 G.O. Bonds Annual Payment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G.O. Bond Payment Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 G.O. Bonds Principal Payment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G.O. Bands Interest Payment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G.O. Bands Balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Combined Annual Payment 0 0 2,466 2,466 2,466 2,466 2,466 2,466 2,466 2,466 2,466 2,466 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Expected Airport Revenue 1,219.900 51,900 16,900 19,100 19,100 19,100 19.100 19,100 26,200 26,200 26,200 26,200 26,200 31,300 31,300 31,300 31,300 31,300 36,900 36,900 Capital lmprovments (255,000) (1,000,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Consolidated O-M Expenses (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) Combined Annual Payment 0 0 (2,466) (2,466) (2,466) (2,466) (2,466) (2,466) (2,466) (2,466) (2,466) (2,466) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Annaal Budget Surplus(Deficit) 943,900 (969,100) (6,566) (4,366) (4,366) (4,366) (4,366) (4,366) 2,734 2,734 2,734 2,734 5,200 10,300 10,300 10,300 10,300 10,300 15,900 15,900 Analysis: The taxpayers of the City of Kalispell would support Kalispell City Airport operations, maintenance, and capital improvements to a cost of ($45,842) over the course of the twenty year study period. I ne alsmbured costs or this support is (ye,-) per year, or - 1 t mine, assuming iaaa value ba xeu,bia per rani. G.O. Bond Burden is $0.00 or 0.00 Mills peryear. Notes: Additional Tax Burden is ($2,292.09) or (0.11) Mills per year. State Grants and Loans shown herein are purely speculative, and shown only to demonstrate availability of the these programs. This Is not to be construed as a guaranteed level of funding or even that state participation is likely. Sale of Geneal Obligation Bonds is explored here, however, it is recognized that any sale would require voter approval. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE 4 FUNDING SCENARIO A Proposed Schedule of Near Term Developments Year Description Cost, 2000 Environmental Assessment and Site Selection Study $130,000 2001 Land Acquisition of Phase I and Phase II land acquisition, plus 15% for Administration, Appraisals, Negotiation, Legal Fees $736,000 2002 Runway, Taxiway, Apron, and Electrical Construction, Hangar Taxiway Development Hangar Utilities FBO Utilities Runway, Taxiway, Apron and Electrical Expansion $1,620,000 $110,000 $125,000 $35,000 $250,000 Subtotal of Near Term Capital Improvement Costs $3,006,000 Proposed Schedule of Long Term Developments 2010 Hangar Taxiway Complex $110,000 FBO Development Utilities (_Make Sanitary Sewer, Water, Telephone and Electricity available) $85,000 2017 Apron Expansion $260,000 Subtotal of Long Term Capital Improvement Costs $455,000 GRAND TOTAL OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS $3,916,000 Estimated costs not adjusted for inflation. DETAIL A-4, FUNDING SCENARIO A, ALTERNATE 4 Kalispell City Airport Funding Senario A is full Federal Aviation Administration funding for eligible Improvements Alternate 4 is development of new facility to B-11 Lateral Dimensions, 4,300 foot runway length initial development, additional 400 feet subsequent development in NEW LOCATION. YEAR 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Revenue Consolidated Airport Fees 16,900 16,900 16,900 19,100 19,100 19,100 19,100 19,100 26,200 26,200 26,200 26,200 26,200 31,300 31,300 31,300 31,300 31,300 36,900 36,900 Land Sale (Daley 1 and 3) 1,200:000 FAA Grant 117,000 662,400 1.791,000 225,000 234,000 State Grant 6,500 State Loan General Obligation Bonds Sale Subtotal of Revenue 1,340,400 679,300 1,807,900 19,100 19,100 19,100 19,100 19,100 26,200 26,200 26,200 26,200 26,200 31,300 31,300 256,300 31,300 265,300 36,900 36,900 Capital Improvments Env. AssessJSite Selection 130,000 Tower Relocation Land Acquisition (Phase I and II) 736,000 Runway/Taxiway/Apron/Electrical 1,620,000 Hangar Taxiway Development 110,000 Hangar Utilities 125:000 Hangar Taxiway Development FBO Utilities 35,000 Runway/Taxiway/Apron/Electrical 250,000 Extension to 4,300 feet Apron 1 260,000 Subtotal of Capital Improvements 130,000 736,000 2,140,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 260,000 0 0 Consolidated O-M Expenses 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,000 Debt Service State Loan Annual Payment State Loan Principal Payment State Loan Interest Payment State Loan Balance G.O. Bonds Annual Payment G.O. Bands Principal Payment G.O. Bonds Interest Payment G.O. Bonds Balance Combined Annual Payment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Expected Airport Revenue 1,340,400 679,300 1,807.900 19,100 19,100 19,100 19,100 19,100 26,200 26,200 26,200 26,200 26,200 31,300 31,300 256,300 31,300 265,300 36,900 36,900 Capital lmprovments (130,000) (736,000) (2,140,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (260,000) 0 0 Consolidated O-M Expenses (32,000) (32,000) (32.000) (32,000) (32.000) (32,000) (32,000) (32,000) (32,000) (32,000) (32,000) (32,000) (32,000) (32,000) (32,000) (32,000) (32,000) (32,000) (32,000) (32,000) Combined Annual Payment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Annaul Budget Surplus(Deficit) 1,178,400 (88,700) (364,100) (12,900) (12,900) (12,900) (12,900) (12,900) (5,800) (5,800) (5,800) (5,800) (5,800) (700) (700) 224,300 (700) (26,700) 4,900 4,900 nalysis: The taxpayers of the City of Kalispell would support Kalispell City Airport operations, maintenance, and capital improvements to a cost of ($837,400) over the course of the twenty year study period. I he mstributed co na or mus support is tyai,a ru/ per year, or -[.us mnis, assuming _i aau value or y[u,ti'ia per mini. G.O. Bond Burden is $0.00 or 0.00 Mills per year. Notes: Additional Tax Burden is ($41,870.00) or (2.03) Mills per year. State Grants and Loans shown herein are purely speculative, and shown only to demonstrate availability of the these programs. This is not to be construed as a guaranteed level of funding or even that state participation is likely. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE 4 FUNDING SCENARIO D Proposed Schedule of Near Term Developments Year Description Cost10 2000 Environmental Assessment and Site Selection Study $130,000 2001 Land Acquisition of Phase I and Phase II land acquisition, plus 15% for Administration, Appraisals, Negotiation, Legal Fees $736 000 2002 Runway, Taxiway, Apron, and Electrical Construction, Hangar Taxiway Development Hangar Utilities FBO Utilities Runway, Taxiway, Apron and Electrical Expansion $1,620,000 $110 000 $125,000 $35,000 $250,000 Subtotal of Near Tenn Capital Improvement Costs $3,006,000 Proposed Schedule of Long Term Developments 2010 Hangar Taxiway Complex $110,000 FBO Development Utilities (Make Sanitary Sewer, Water, Telephone and Electricity available) $85,000 2017 Apron Expansion $260,000 Subtotal of Long Tenn Capital Improvement Costs $455,000 GRAND TOTAL OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS $3,916,000 Estimated costs not adjusted for inflation. DETAIL D-4, FUNDING SCENARIO D, ALTERNATE 4 Kalispell City Airport Funding Scenario D is no Federal Participation in any phase of Airport Development. Alternate 4 is development of haw facility to B-II Lateral Dimensions, 4,300 foot runway length initial development, additional 400 feel subsequent development in NEW LOCATION. YEAR 2000 200 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Revenue Consolidated Airport Fees 16,900 16,900 16,900 19,100 19,100 19,100 19,100 19,100 26,200 26,200 26,200 26,200 20,200 31,300 31.300 31,300 31,300 31,300 36,900 36,900 Land Sale (Daley 1 and 3) 1,200,000 FAA Grant State Grant State Loan General Obligation Bonds Sale 2,0000 Subtotal of Revenue 3,216,,00900 16,900 16,900 19,100 19,100 19,100 19,100 19,100 26,200 26,200 26,200 26,200 25,200 31,300 31,300 31,300 31,300 31,300 36,900 36.900 Capital Improvments Environmental Assessment 130,000 Tower Relocation Land Acquisition (Phase I and 11) 736,000 Runvray/Taxiway/Apron/Electrical 1,620,000 Hangar Taxiway Development 110,000 Hangar Utilities 125,000 Hangar Taxiway Development 110,000 FBO titlities 35,000 85,000 Runway/Taxiway/Apron/Electrical 20,000 Extension to 4,300 feet Apron 260,000 Subtotal of Capital Improvements 130,000 736,000 2,140,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 195,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 260,000 0 0 Consolidated 0-M Expenses-221,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000- Debt Service State Loan Annual Payment 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,551 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,315 State Loan Principal Payment 3,750 3,900 4,056 4,218 4,387 4,562 4,745 4,935 5,132 5,315 State Loan Interest Payment 1,800 1,650 1,494 1,332 1,162 988 805 615 418 0 State Loan Balance 45,000 41,250 37,350 33,294 29,076 24,689 20,126 15,381 10,447 5,315 0 G.O. Bonds Annual Payment 188,786 188,786 188,786 188.786 188,786 188,786 188.786 188,78: 188,786 188,786 188,786 188,786 188.786 188,786 188,786 188,786 188,786 188,786 188,786 G.O. Bond Payment Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 G.O. Bonds Principal Payment 48,786 52.201 55,855 59,765 63,948 68,425 73,214 78.339 83,823 89.6910 95,969 102'687 109,875 117,566 125,796 134,6026 144,024 154,105 164,899 G.0. Bonds Interest Payment 140,000 136,585 132,931 129,021 124,838 120,361 115,571 110,446 104,963 99,095 92,817 86,099 78 '91 1 71,220 62,990 54.184 44,762 34.680 23,893 G.O. Bonds Balance 2.000,000 1.951,214 1,899,013 1,843,158 1.783,394 1,719,445 1,651,021 1,577,806 1,499,467 1,415,644 1,325,953 1,229,984 1,127,297 1,017,422 899,855 774,059 639,458 495.434 341,328 176,435 Combined Annual Payment 0 188,786 188.786 188.786 188,786 188,786 188,786 194,336 194.336 194,336 194,336 194,336 194,336 194,336 194,336 194,336 194,101 188,786 188,786 188,786 Expected Airport Revenue 3,216,900 16,900 16,900 19,100 19,100 19,100 19,100 19,100 26,200 26,200 26,200 26,200 26,200 31,300 31,300 31,300 31,300 31,300 36,900 36,900 Capital Irmehmments (130,000) (736,000) (2,140,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (195,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 (260,000) 0 0 Consolidated O-M Expenses (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) (21.000) (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) (21,000) Combined Annual Payment 0 (188,786) (188,786) (188,786) (188.786) (188,786) (188,786) (194,336) (194,336) (194,336) (194,336) (194,336) (194,336) (194.336) (194,336) (194,336) (194,101) (188,786) (188,786) (188.786) Annaul Budget Surplus(Deficit) 3,065,900 (928,886) (2,332,886) (190,686) (190,686) (190,686) (190,686) (196,236) (189,136) (189,136) (384,136) (189,136) (189,136) (184,036) (184,036) (184,036) (183,801) (438,486) (172,886) (172,886) Analysis: The taxpayers of the City of Kalispell would support Kalispell City Airport operations, maintenance, and capital improvements to a cost of $3.815,696 over the course of the twenty year study period. auppu,i is I I eu,, 1 psi yeei, ui a.c., nn a, uaaui lily i7nn value �i acu,o o peg hui,. G.O. Bond Burden is $188,785.85 or 9.16 Mills per year. Notes: Additional Tax Burden is $1.998.96 or 0.10 Mills per year. Stale Giants and Loans shown herein are purely speculative, and shown only to demonstrate availability of the these programs. This is not to be construed as a guaranteed level of funding or even that state participation is likely. sale of General Obligation Bonds is explored here, however, it is recognized that any sale would require voter approval.