01/96 Airport/Athletic Complex Redevelopment Plan Analysis"KALISPELL CITY""
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ...................................... 1
SECTION .......................................... 1
History........................................... 1
SECTION II .......................................... 2
Project Area ....................................... 2
SECTION III ......................................... 3
Publicly Owned Property ............................... 3
Leasehold Interests .................................. 7
SECTION IV ......................................... 9
Privately Owned Property ............................ a. 9
SECTIONV......................................... 11
Implementation of the Neighborhood Plan ................. 11
Short Term Priorities ................................ 12
Long Term Priorities ................................. 13
SECTION VI ........................................ 13
"Airport Overlay Zone" ............................... 13
Table 1 - Land Acquisition Costs for Runway Extension ........ 16
SECTION VII........................................ 16
Kalispell City Airport Recreation Activities to be Displaced
and Recommendations for Relocation ................... 16
Option 1 - "State Lands School Section Site ................ 16
Option 2 - Cemetery Road Site ......................... 18
Option 3 - Lincoln Site ............................... 19
Relocation Costs ................................... 19
SECTION Vill....................................... 21
Construction and Signalization of U.S. Hwy 93 and
3rd Ave East Intersection ........................... 21
SECTION IX ........................................ 21
Financing Alternatives ............................... 21
How to Finance the Redevelopment of Kalispell
City Airport and the Relocation of the Ballfields ............ 21
Local Government Financing Options .....................
23
Revenue History of the Kalispell City Airport ................
28
AirportRevenues ...................................
29
Revenue Enhancement ...............................
30
Financing Options ..................................
31
Option 1 - Surplus Land Sale ........................
31
Option 2 - Land Lease .............................
31Option
3 - Tax Increment Financed Urban Renewal Project ....
33
Option 4 - Industrial Development Bonds ................
36
Other Financing Options ..............................
37
General Obligation Bonds ...........................
37
Urban Renewal Bonds and Refunding Bonds ..............
37
Other Financing ..................................
37
State and Regional Financing ........................
38
Federal Financing .................................
38
Community Development Block Grants ...............
38
CONCLUSION ......................................... 39
RECOMMENDATION .................................... 39
EXHIBIT 1 - Map showing non -municipally owned private holdings
EXHIBIT 2 - Resolution No. 4210
EXHIBIT 3 - Chapter 11, MCA
EXHIBIT 4 - Amortization Schedule
EXHIBIT 5 - Amortization Schedule
EXHIBIT 6 - Amortization Schedule
EXHIBIT 7 - Amortization Schedule
EXHIBIT 8 - Amortization Schedule
EXHIBIT 9 - Amortization Schedule
APPENDIX 1 - Permitted Uses, Conditionally Permitted Uses, and
Development Standards for the 11 Zone, Light Industrial
APPENDIX 2 - Permitted Uses, Conditionally Permitted Uses, and
Development Standards for the B2 Zone, General Business
•
The KALISPE L CiTY AIRPORTNEIGHBORHOOD PLAN (the "PLAN") was adopted
by the Kalispell City Council on September 19, 1994, and also approved and
adopted by the Flathead County Board of Commissioners, formally amending the
LISPELL CITY - COUNTY MASTER PLAN, YEAR 2010. The PLAN was initiated
by the Flathead Regional Development Office at the request of the Kalispell City
Council and completed by a private consultant.
The primary goal of the PLAN is to redevelop the "Kalispell City" Airport (the
"Airport") to meet the "B1 " design standards of the Federal Aviation
Administration. At the present time the Airport has multiple deficiencies and does
not meet xly FAA airport design standards. The PLAN spells out eleven "Target
Standards" (pp 16-19 of the PLAN) which, if met, will begin to bring the Airport up
to FAA "B 1 " design standards. The Goals and Strategies of the PLAN (pp. 24-29
of the PLAN), if implemented, will not only enhance the design of the Airport, but
will result in a safer, more efficient facility, encouraging and enhancing private
redevelopment and investment in the Airport neighborhood.
The following is a brief history of the Kalispell City Airport, a description of the
Kalispell City Airport Project Area, a summary of the goals, strategies and
recommendations of the Kalispell City Airport Neighborhood Plan, the costs
associated with implementation of the PLAN (these costs include improvements to
the Airport as well as the relocation of the youth baseball, softball, and soccer
fields to a consolidated recreation complex), and revenue and financing alternatives
available to implement the PLAN.
•
s.
In 1928 the City of Kalispell purchased 135 acres on the southeastern edge of the
City to establish a municipal airport. Except for a brief time in the 1950s, the
Airport has operated uninterrupted at its original location. In March of 1966 a
group of local businessmen and aircraft owners formed the Kalispell Airport
Association to lease the Airport from the City and assumed responsibility for its
operation. Financial difficulties and a reported lack of clear direction or authority
from the City caused the Association to pass full fiscal and operational
DATE: January 23, 1996 1
responsibility for the Airport back to the City in 1986. Today, the City's Parks and
Recreation Department has been assigned management and budget authority for
the Airport by the Kalispell City Manager, the City's Chief Executive Officer, who
implements the Kalispell City Council's policy.
Fixed Base Operators (FBOs) were first established at the Airport in the 1950s and
from this point forward, aviation activity has steadily grown to the point where
today "Kalispell City" is Montana's busiest general aviation field with 33,1001
operations reported in 1993.
In 1979 the City engaged TAP Inc., to prepare an Airport "Mini Master Plan"
examining current airport operations and recommending actions and projects to
improve the safety and long-term viability of the Airport. Not surprisingly, the
1979 Mini Master Plan recommendations are very similar to those contained in the
1993 Kalispell City Airport Neighborhood Plan yet none were implemented due to
lack of consensus, financing or commitment by either/or both the public and private
sectors served by --the Airport. The Federal Aeronautics Administration (FAA) has
historically refused funding for improvements because of Kalispell City's proximity
to Glacier Park International Airport and the State of Montana has heretofore been
unable to fund needed improvements. The State, however, currently has limited
loan and grant funds available. Both will be discussed in the financing section of
this document.
SECTION
DESCRIPTIONOF ,
PROJECT
The project area is bounded generally by Twelfth Street West to the north, U.S.
Hwy 93 and Third Ave East to the east, Cemetery Road to the south, and Ashley
Creek to the west.
"Kalispell City," as it is called on Sectional Charts and in general aviation circles,
consists of both publicly and privately held land and improvements.
All City owned properties in the Kalispell City Airport Project Area are described in
detail in Section III and shown on the map attached as Exhibit 1. For the purposes
of this implementation plan, City owned land lying adjacent to U.S. Hwy. 93 and
occupied by (1) the Haven Ballfields and (2) Lion's Park is considered to be a part of
the Airport property. The land was part of the original 135 acre Airport property
' The Montana Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division's Airport
Master Record, 5/93.
DATE: January 23, 1996 2
and later segregated by the realignment and construction of U.S. Hwy 93. While
the City retains title to this property, several other parcels have been sold. Right-
of-way acquisition for U.S. Hwy 93 has also decreased the size of the original site.
Non -municipally owned private holdings fronting on the west side of U.S. Hwy. 93
in the immediate area and/or adjacent to or on the "Kalispell City' Airport include:
Home and Ranch Supply, Social and Rehabilitation Services (SR) Building, Strand
Aviation, Aero Inn, and the Elk's Club. Strand Aviation is a privately owned FBO
located on the Airport behind the State of Montana National Guard Armory; both
are accessed via U.S. Hwy 93.
PARCEL DESCRIPTION
1 12B
2 5G
3 2B, PORTIONS OF 2A, 3A & 1
4 3, PORTION OF 3A
5 PORTION OF 3A
6 PORTIONS OF 3A, 1
7
COS #11920
8
8Y
9
SHOP ADDITION
10
TRACT 2
11
PARCEL 2, COS#
12
PARCEL 6, COS #
SECTION III
USE
SIZE
LEASE -
(ACRES)
HOLDERS
R&J WRECKING
1.8
NONE
R&J WRECKING
5.3
NONE
AIRPORT LANDING FIELD
40.0
NONE
SEWER TREATMENT PLANT
26.2
NONE
SOCCER FIELDS
34.8
NONE
EAGLE AVIATION
MULTIPLE
(HANGARS, TIEDOWNS)
COURTYARD APARTMENTS
1.14
NONE
VACANT
8.23
NONE
CITY SHOPS
5.0
NONE
CITY WELL SITE
0.51
NONE
HAVEN BALLFIELDS
4.1
NONE
DALEY BALLFIELDS
17.028
NONE
*Acreage of #5 includes Parcel #6
PARCELS 1 & 2: FORMER CITY LANDFILL SITE
Parcels 1 & 2, approximately 8.3 acres in area, comprise what was, at one time,
the City's landfill. While the City has not used the property for several decades, it
appears that an adjacent property owner has, over time, encroached on the
property by moving junked vehicles onto the site. There is no record of an
agreement between the City and the adjacent property owner permitting this
encroachment. The parcels are not served by sewer or water or any municipal
services. The land is within Flathead County's zoning jurisdiction and is zoned
Light Industrial (11) on Tract 5G and Suburban Agricultural (SAG-10) on Tract
12BA.
DATE: January 23, 1996 3
EARCEL 3 - AIRPORT LANDING FIELD
Parcel 3 is the Airport Landing Field, a single VFR runway, approximately
3,585 feet in length oriented northwest to southeast. The paved runway has a
minimum width of 60 feet. Two (2) paved taxiways parallel the runway. The
easterly taxiway's length matches the runway, while the westerly taxiway stops
approximately 1,300 feet short of the runway's south end.
The runway and taxiway lighting system is comprised of fifty (50) low intensity
lights and six (6) threshold lights at the end of each runway. An airport beacon
light is located in the vicinity of the U.S. Forest Service Building west of the
runway. The Airport does not have a VASI.
There are currently three .fixed base operators (FBOs) located on the Airport. An
FBO is defined as a business or individual located at an airport providing general
commercial aviation services such as aircraft repair, flight instruction, or fuel sales.
These and other services are provided at Kalispell City by Eagle Aviation, Strand
Aviation and Diamond Aire (the former Stockhill Aviation). Eagle Aviation leases its
location from the City while Strand and Diamond Aire own the property they
occupy.
The lack of protection to runway approach areas is one of the most significant
shortcomings of the Kalispell City Airport. There is only about 650 feet of
separation between the north edge of the runway and the 18th Street right-of-way,
and 300 feet between the runway and private property to the south. While the
City owns a limited amount of property at each end of the runway, it is =
sufficient to meet Federal Aviation Administration standards with respect to object
free areas (clear zones) or runway protection zones (RPZs).
PARCEL 4 - WA1TEWATER TREATME T PLANT SITE
Parcel 4, a 26.2 acre site located adjacent to and east of Airport Road and north of
Ashley Creek, is occupied by the City of Kalispell's Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP). The site is considered large enough to accommodate future growth of
the plant, and is zoned P-1, Public Land.
Access to Parcel 4 is via a driveway (not a dedicated right-of-way at this time) from
Airport Road which also provides the only access to Parcel 5, another City owned
property described below.
PARCEL 5 - SOCCER FIELDS
Parcels 5 and 6 total 34.8 acres. Parcel 5 is situated north of the Wastewater
Treatment Plant access road and east of Airport Road, its westerly border, and is
used by area youth and adult soccer clubs. As many as six (6) soccer fields can be
configured at this location at any given time. There is also one Pee Wee baseball
DATE: January 23, 1996 4
field at this location. The City recently rezoned this property to an 1-1, Light
Industrial classification in conformance with the goals and objectives of the Kalispell
City Airport Neighborhood PLAN. Permitted uses, conditionally permitted uses, and
development standards for the 1-1 zone are attached as Appendix 1.
PARCEL 6 —HANGARSITIEDOWNS/LEASE SPACE
Parcel 6 is the second part of the City owned 34.8 acres site. Parcel 6 is located
north of the soccer fields (Parcel 5) and west of the runway. It is partially leased to
a number of tenants for a variety of uses; most are airport related (a detailed
description of the leases is contained later in this section). The land uses on
Parcel 6 include Eagle Aviation, six (6) airplane hangars, numerous airplane tie
down areas and a storage/display lot leased for retail trailer sales. Parcel 6 was
also recently rezoned to an 1-1, Light Industrial, classification. Parcels 5 and 6 are
served by all utilities, including City sewer and water, electricity, natural gas, and
cable television. Direct access to Parcels 5 and 6 is available from Airport Road
only.
PARCEL 7 - COURTYA)3 AFAR MMEiVTS
The Courtyard Apartments, located west of Airport Road, is an award winning 32
unit apartment complex designed and constructed for low income tenants. The
City owns 1.11 acres occupied by 16 units and Northwest Montana Human
Resources owns 1.139 acres occupied with another 16 units. The site is served by
all public utilities and is zoned RA-3, Residential Apartment/Office.
PARCEL 8 - !VACANT
This 8.229 acre site is situated south and east of the City Shops (Parcel 9 below)
and is, for all practical purposes, vacant. There are no structures on the site, but a
storm water retention facility is located here.
PARCEL 9 - CITY SHOPS
The City Shops occupy this 5 t acre site. The site is served by all utilities and is
zoned P1, Public.
The Kalispell City Shops compound includes warehousing, workshops and offices
for Public Works field divisions including the City Garage, Water, Sewer, Signs and
Signals, Street and Solid Waste Divisions. The Parks Department warehouse and
an employee parking lot are located at the City Shops compound as well.
The City Garage warehouse includes a staff room, parts storeroom and service bays
to provide maintenance for vehicles from all City departments. A gasoline refueling
bay, with underground storage tanks, is located in front of the garage.
DATE: January 23, 1996 5
Each of the other divisions has its own warehouse with a staff room, workshop
area and storage facilities for various construction materials and supplies. Most
divisions also store durable materials in open spaces throughout the compound.
PARCEL 10 -CITY WELL SITE
The City owns a small parcel (.51 acre) of property immediately west of U.S.
Hwy 93 between the Aero Inn and the National Guard Armory. One of three City
water wells is located at this site. The property is zoned P-1, Public.
PARCEL 11 - MAVEN BALLFIELDS
The Haven complex consists of one Babe Ruth and one Pee Wee baseball field on
4.1 acres of land. The site has excellent frontage and access from three separate
public right-of-ways: 650 feet on U.S. Hwy 93; 390 feet on 18th St East; and
471 feet on Third Ave East. The trapezoidal shaped property is level and
unimproved (other than the two ballfields and their appurtenances). The site is
unencumbered by easements of any kind and could easily be redeveloped for
commercial purposes.
The property is currently zoned B-2, General Business. The permitted uses,
conditionally permitted uses, and development standards for the B-2 zone are
attached as Appendix 2.
The site is served by all utilities. City sewer and water mains are situated in both
18th St East and Third Ave East. The site is also served by natural gas, electricity,
telephone, and cable television. Both access and utility of this and other parcels
with highway frontage will be enhanced when the new 3rd Ave East signalized "T"
intersection is constructed with the U.S. Hwy 93 project.
PARCEL 12 _ DALEY BALLFIELDS
The Daley Ballfields are located on a 17.028 acre parcel on the west side of U.S.
Hwy 93, between the National Guard Armory and the SRS office building. There
are currently six Kalispell Youth Softball fields and one Pee Wee Baseball
Association field located on the parcel. The site has approximately 1,534 lineal
feet of frontage on U.S. Hwy 93, and averages 400 feet in depth. There are no
unique topographic features found on the treeless, grassy site. Two easements are
located on the site. A utility easement, thirty (30) feet in width, abuts the south
property line. A road easement, also thirty (30) feet in width, is located along the
site's north property line.
When U.S. Hwy 93 is reconstructed in 1997/1998, it is contemplated that the City
of Kalispell and the State of Montana Department of Transportation will construct a
new signalized "T" intersection relocating and realigning the 3rd Ave East
intersection with U.S. Hwy 93 to approximately the center of this 17.028 acre
DATE: January 23, 1996 6
parcel. This new signalized intersection will provide vastly improved direct and
enhanced ingress and egress to U.S. Hwy 93 and the entire east side of the City of
Kalispell. The cost of signalizing the intersection is included in Section Vill.
The property is currently zoned B-2, General Business. The permitted uses,
conditionally permitted uses, and development standards for the B-2 zone are
attached as Appendix 2.
All utilities required for commercial redevelopment are readily available. City of
Kalispell water service is available from a main on the west side of U.S. Hwy 93.
City sewer service is available from a sewer main located on the east side of U.S.
Hwy 93, between Lion's Park and Kelly Road. Natural gas, electricity, telephone,
and cable television are also available. -
PARCEL 13 - REGG PARK GRIFFIN FIELD
Begg Park/Griffin Field consists of two recreation complexes bisected by Begg Park
Drive, the entrance to South Meadows Subdivision. Parcel 13 is approximately
8.72 acres of City owned land. The area is improved with two ball fields, one rest
room facility, three soccer fields, two picnic areas, underground irrigation, one
playground and two concession stands.
The land was acquired from the Begg family in September 1985. Development
started in November of that year. The project was a tax increment financed
relocation of Griffin Field from its former location in the northeast corner of the
City's Urban Renewal Project Area, a redevelopment site now occupied by
Tidyman's, Whitefish Credit Union, and the Dollar Store. The parcel is served by
City sewer and water.
The City has outstanding lease agreements on the following properties:
ANNUAL
EXPIRATION
LEASEHOLDER
COST PER SQ FT
PAYMENT
DATE
USE
NOYES
$0.05
$217.80
7/01 /04
HANGAR
BILLMAYER
$0.07
$611.52
10/01 /04
HANGAR
GARDNER/EAGLE
$0.07
$504.00
12/30/06
FBO
POTTS & HECKLE
$0.07
$210.00
04/15/06
HANGAR
GARDNER
$0.10
$600.00
MONTH -TO -MONTH
TRAILER STORAGE
MTN WEST/THOMAS
$0.1575
$425.00
01/01/08
STORAGE
EAGLE AVIATION
$0.10
$126.00
12/30/06
FUEL TANK SITE
YOUTH SOCCER
N/A
$20.00
N/A
SOCCER FIELDS
DATE: January 23, 1996 7
The following is a summary of the leases identified above:
Hangar Site 11: Noyes
$217.80/year $0.05/sq ft
July 1, 1985 - July 1, 2004
Hangar is 66'x44' =2,294 sq ft x 1.5 =4,356 sq ft @ .05/sq ft = $217.80
*Paving credit pays this lease through 1996; partial payment of $163.35 due
for 1997. The $217.80 annual lease payment will be due 1 /1 /98 and
throughout the balance of the lease.
Hanger Site #2: 8illmayer
$611.52/year $0.07/sq ft
September 20, 1984 - October 1, 2004
Hangar is 32'x182'=5,824x1.5 =8.736 sq ft @ .07=$611.52
Hangar Sites #3_& #4: Gardner (Assigned to Eagle Aviation)
$504.00/year $0.07/sq ft
October 21, 1986 - December 30, 2006
Hangar is 60'x80' = 4,800 sq ft x 1.5 = 7,200 sq ft @0.07/sq ft = $504.00
*Paving credits reduce annual lease payment in half ($252.00) through the year
2002; partial payment of $429.83 due for 2003. The $504.00 annual lease
payment will be due 1 /1 /04 and throughout the balance of the lease.
Hangar Site #9: Potts & Heckle
$210.00/year $0.07/sq ft
April 15, 1986 - April 15, 2006
Hangar is 40'x50' = 2,000 sq ft x 1.5 = 3,000 sq ft @ $.07/sq ft = $210.00/yr.
Trailer Parking
$50.00/month $600/year $0.10/sq ft
Lease Expired: March 30, 1994; Subject to immediate notice and cancellation
Mountain West Helicopters: Assigned to Frank Thomas 11 /10/93
$425.25/year $0.1575/sq ft
August 23, 1988 - January 1, 2008
Eagle Aviation: Fuel Tank Site
$126.00/year $0.10/sq ft
July 1, 1994 - December 30, 2006 (runs with building lease on
Hangar Sites 3 & 4)
. •I
$20.00/year
DATE: January 23, 1996 8
SECTION
j N , ,
Located within the suggested project area boundary are multiple private ownerships
that may be affected by the proposed project. In the event an urban renewal project
is created, all of the owners must be notified of the City's intention to declare the area
blighted and that it is necessary and in the public interest for the City to implement an
urban renewal plan. A complete list of private owners should be compiled, checked
and verified prior to the adoption of any plan for implementation.
TRACT
P.I.N.
OWNER
ACRES
6D
0949500
DOUG & JULIE WISE
20.00
513,51313
0219880
DOUG & DONNA MILLER
4.79
5HA
07117.01
R & R DEVELOPMENT
5.21
5H, 5J, 5CEB
0367750
ELMER SIELER
13.51
5G
CITY OF KALISPELL
2.50
5GAA, 5CCAA
0848978
RON & CLARA SWARTZENBERGER
0.90
5GB, 5CCB
0848078
RON & CLARA SWARTZENBERGER
0.93
5GC
0791472
ELMER JR & VIRGINIA SIELER
3.22
5C, 5CE
ELMER JR & VIRGINIA SIELER
3.00
5GA, 5CCA
0848976
RON & CLARA SWARTZENBERGER
1.37
5CCD
0259420
PHYLLIS BRIGGS
1.20
STEVEN & KATHLEEN BOOWER
5CC
0970295
AL SHEFFERD
0.37
2
0535340
ROBERT MONK
10.78
7C
0535340
ROBERT MONK
0.12
7CG
0975566
ERIN WILKEN
4.57
DOUG & DONNA MILLER
2D
0535342
SYDNEY TORGERSON
1.68
2E
0968004
MICHAEL BARRETT
0.81
2M
0980170
JERRY & KAREN SLACK
0.82
2G
0972764
RON TRIPPETT
1.67
3AA
FOREST SERVICE
2.00
DATE: January 23, 1996 9
3AB
0829450
LAWRENCE & BETTY STOCKHILL
1.51
MARGERY HEWSON TRUST
1 D
0835500
MYRON & MARILYN STRAND
3.16
STRAND AVIATION
1 B
NATIONAL GUARD ARMORY
3.44
1
0427901 _
KALISPELL ELKS
3.67
1A
0112600
MEYERS FAMILY TRUST
1.47
GILBERT & SUSAN BISSELL
2AD
0971780
ROBERT & LADONA MONK
0.37
JOHN DITTMAN
KALISPELL OB/GYN ASSOC. _
VAN KIRKE NELSON TRUST
2L
0974474
ORETANA
9.32
2ACA, 2K
0974200
WIGGIN & TORGERSON, PARTNERS
1.43
SRS BUILDING
2AC
0974473
DON TORGERSON
1.44
2C
0050405
DONALD & JUANITA BREVIK
1.40
7AAC, 7CD
0050405
DONALD & JUANITA BREVIK
1.08
7AAB
0368500
EDWARD HINES TRUST
1.55
DONALD HINES
7CEB
0976769
DONALD & VICTORIA BURTON
1.23
7CEA
0975364
LINDA STEVENS
0.34
0972913
FREDERICK WEBER
SKY HARBOR CONDOS
0976768
ALAN & MARY LERNER
7CF
0975555
DONALD & VICTORIA BURTON
1.29
KENNETH MAKLOSKI
2F
0969226
SYDNEY TORGERSON
4.67
2FA
0975843
LOUIS & CAROL SCHLEGEL
2.33
2J
0973040
HUGH LOUDEN
1.16
2JA
0973749
HUGH LOUDEN
1.03
2J13
0973755
HUGH LOUDEN
1.01
12BA.
E002400
CITY OF KALISPELL
5.80
12B
0791474
ELMER JR & VIRGINIA SIELER
10.43
DATE: January 23, 1996
10
12A, 12AA, 12 E013766 FLATHEAD COUNTY 24.71
12C E013750 FLATHEAD COUNTY 2.11
TOTAL ACREAGE 122.35
SECTION V
IMPLEMENTATION OF
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
The following is a summary of (i) the goals, strategies and recommendations of the
Kalispell City Airport Neighborhood Plan, (ii) the costs associated with implementation
of the PLAN, and (iii) a recommended schedule with priorities Tor the capital
improvements called for in the PLAN.
TO MINIMIZE HAZARDSTO NAVIGATION
TO DEVELOP THE AIRPORT ACCORDANCE AIRPORT
LAYOUT PLAN
TO INCREASE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES ON NEARBY PROPERTIES
TO PROMOTE COMPATIBLE LAND USES IN AND AROUND THE AIRPORT
TO ESTABLISH FUNDINGFOR .. • . OPERATIONS
TO ESTABLISH A PRIORITY SCHEDULE FOR PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
Strategy: QQ9
• Extend runway to the south to obtain length of 4,700 feet,
maintaining a 60' width
• Extend single taxiway to parallel extended runway
• Increase taxiway width to a minimum of '24 feet
• Increase load bearing capacity of runway
Land acquisition, excavation and pavement: $530,396.00
• Remove objects within Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) and purchase private
property located within RPZ.
Acquire two (2) private properties $180,000.00
Remove objects within RPZ $15,000.00
DATE: January 23, 1996 11
• Strobe the KGEZ radio towers $3,400.00
• Install PAPI navigation system
• Install new runway and taxiway lighting system
• Install perimeter fence $271,200.00
TOTAL COST OF IMPROVEMENTS IDENTIFIED IN PLAN: $1,000,896.00
The PLAN designates both short 0 to 5 years) and long-term (5 to 15 years) priorities
for capital improvements at the Airport.
SHORT -TER PRIORITIES of the PLAN (and the associated costs) are as follows:
• Attempt to purchase or gain the closure of the private road
located within the threshold surface of Runway 31. $18,081.00
• Fence the perimeter of the designated boundaries of
the Airport. $136,200.00
• Purchase or trade for land to permit the extension of
Runway 31. $345,396.00
• Install a PAPI navigational system on Runway 13. $15,000.00
• Install strobe lights on the FM towers south of the City. $3,400.00
• Improve the wiring system of the runway lights.
(There has been no estimate done for just improving
the existing wiring.) $120,000.00
DATE: January 23, 1996 12
• Pave apron areas in area of FBOs for base and itinerant planes.
Cost: Unknown and dependent upon ultimate airport design and need.
Asphalt paving currently costs in the neighborhood of
$1.50/square foot.
• Resurface the runway to comply with the load bearing
requirements for planes weighing up to 12,500 pounds.
• Relocate or widen taxiways to 24' as necessary to comply
with the runway to taxiway separation distances.
• Extend the runway 700 + feet to the southeast to extend
runway to overall length of 4700' as called for in the PLAN
and remove all objects in the protection zone.
• Replace the runway lighting system (included in short-term
priorities)
• Extend a single parallel taxiway along the entire length of
the extended runway
SECTION VI
$55,000.00
$13,000.00
$350,396.-00
[$120,000.001
$25,000.00
The PLAN also discusses the application of zoning regulations, in the form of an
"airport overlay zone," as a means of promoting compatible land uses in and around
the Airport.
The PLAN recommends that this overlay be applied to "private properties situated
adjacent to or within the designated boundaries of the Kalispell Airport and to those
properties influenced by the proposed transitional or threshold surfaces or by the
Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)."
According to Section 67-6-201 MCA, the City of Kalispell, because it owns and
controls the Airport, can and is obligated to control the airport hazard area even if the
hazard area is located outside the City. The City may, by ordinance or resolution duly
DATE: January 23, 1996 13
adopted, create a joint airport zoning board. The board shall have the same power to
adopt, administer, and enforce airport zoning regulations applicable to the airport
hazard area.
The statute further states that if in the judgement of the (city), the (county) within
which is located an airport hazard area appertaining to that airport has failed to adopt
or enforce reasonably adequate airport zoning regulations for such area and if (the
county) has refused to join in creating a joint airport zoning board as authorized, and
the (city) owning or controlling the airport may itself adopt, administer and enforce
airport zoning regulations for the airport hazard area in question.
All or a portion of five (5) pieces of private property would have to be purchased to
implement the Neighborhood PLAN and protect the interests of the City at the south
end of the existing runway. The purchase of these properties would enable
the runway to be extended to an overall length of 4700 feet and would accommodate
the extension and widening of a parallel taxiway as is called for in the PLAN. Rather
than simply purchasing a 200-foot-wide swath of land to accommodate these
improvements, it is being recommended that the City ourchase all roe shown on
�l'�i Y�[�Z �TiTIll 7t�+It+1�lL3�k�►' 11i�+I•I..�I�11 Ill d11- ltr z•]t�i'i`1t9�
,•• • • •�- s • •- -� • • star! ITS1 . =.-
•
As is indicated on Table 1 (located at the end of this section), the properties in
question total approximately 6.44 acres (280,810 sq feet) of land. There are, at this
time, five separate property owners involved. Each of the five owners' holdings are
described below, as is a description of the City's needs on a property -by -property
basis.
in the SE 1 /4 of the SW 1 /4 of Section 20, Township 28 North, Range 21
West, is owned by Doug and Julia Wise of Kalispell. The total size of Tract 6D is
20 acres. Approximately 1,500 sq feet in the northeast corner of the tract is needed
for the runway and taxiway extension. It appears that the property is currently used
as cropland.
Tract C and a small portion of act 2 in the south % of Section 20, Township 28
North, Range 21 West, are owned by BDbert Monk of Marion. Together the tracts
total approximately 516,000 sq feet in area, of which approximately 14,700 sq feet is
DATE: January 23, 1996 14
needed. The parcels are situated immediately south of the existing runway property.
They currently function as a segment of a road linking U.S. Hwy 93 to properties
west of the runway that do not have highway frontage. It is staff's understanding
that the road does not have the required approach permit from the Montana
Department of Transportation, and will be.closed at the time U.S. Hwy 93 is widened
and approved.
This parcel consists of Tract 5136 in its entirety and a small portion of Tract in the
SW 1 /4 of the SE 1 /4 of Section 20, Township 28 North, Range 21 West.
Encompassing approximately 70,030 of the 208, 650 sq feet owned b Doug and
Donna Miller. this parcel lies immediately south of the above -described road. The
property is currently used as a depository for a variety of used building materials.
That portion of Tract 513 fronting on U.S. Hwy 93 is occupied by a retail boat sales
business.
Private Parcel 4 is the westerly 87,330 sq feet of Tract 5HA in the SW 1 /4 of the SE
1 /4 of Section 20, Township 28 North, Range 21 West. Tract 5HA is owned by
R and R Develo m nt of Kalispell and is approximately 226,950 sq feet in area. The
property is vacant.
Private Parcel 5 is comprised of the westerly 107,250 sq feet of Tract 5H in the SW
1 /4 of the SE 1 /4 of Section 20, Township 28 North, Range 21 West. Dandi Building
Structures, a prefabricated building business, occupies the east % of Tract 5H. The
property is owned by Elmer Sieler.
DATE: January 23, 1996 15
TABLE 1
KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT
Land Acquisition Costs for Runway Extension
TRACT
OWNER
SIZE IN SF
SF
COST
TOTAL COST
NEEDED
PER SF
2, 7C
MONK
516,246
14,700
$1.23
$18;081.00
513, 51313
MILLER
208,652
70,030
$1.23
$86,136.90
5HA
R AND R
226,948
87,330
$1.23
$107,415.90
5H, 5J,
SIELER
587,620
107,250
$1.23
$131,917.50
5CEB
6D
WISE
871,200
1,500
$1.23
$1,845.00
TOTAL
2,410,666
280,810
$345,396.30
�4#lwj ►T�[�lil
KALISPELL RECREATIONi BE DISPLACED AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RELOCATION
At this time there is a total of sixteen (16) baseball and soccer fields in the vicinity
of the Airport. There are six (6) fields used by the Kalispell Youth Softball
Association, three (3) Pee Wee baseball fields, one Babe Ruth field and six (6)
soccer fields. The 1993 Kalispell City Airport PLAN calls for the elimination of the
ballfields and the introduction of more appropriate land uses on those parcels now
occupied by the ballfields. Furthermore, the Kalispell City Council has made it clear
that they are committed to replacing the ballfields at another location prior to the
disposal or redevelopment of the ballfield properties.
Three sites have been identified as possible relocation sites for the Airport area
baseball, softball, and soccer fields. Each are identified below, with their respective
attributes discussed.
Option 1: The 620-acre "State Land" -!School Section site, located west of U.S.
Hwy 93, its easterly boundary, and bordered by Fo -Mile Drive on the south,
DATE: January 23, 1996 16
Stillwater Road on the west and Reserve Drive on the north. The State Land -
School Section site has long been identified as a potential relocation site for the
Flathead County Fairgrounds Complex and other public use activities. Because the
site is located across the highway from Flathead Valley Community College (FVCC)
and is bordered by U.S. Hwy 93 and Stillwater Road (the designated route of the
Kalispell By -Pass), and Reserve Street, Kalispell's northernmost east/west urban
arterial, it is considered the prime_location to consolidate and site the community's
outdoor recreation facilities. One -hundred twenty (120) to one hundred sixty (160)
acres in the southeast corner of the site would accommodate the community's_
current and future needs for youth baseball, softball, and soccer fields.
The Board of Land Commissioners of the State of Montana (the "Board") has the
authority to "direct, control, lease, exchange and sell" school lands such as this
which were granted for the support of education. The Board is authorized to lease
the land for other than agricultural, grazing, cabin site or mineral production use for
up to 40 years. The site is currently classified as agricultural land; that classifica-
tion would have to be amended on at least the needed 120-160 acres to
accommodate a recreation facility. It is the Board's responsibility to manage state
lands under the multiple -use management concept defined in Section 77-1-2030 ),
MCA, as the management of all the various resources of the state lands so that:
(a) they are utilized in that combination best meeting the needs of the
people and the beneficiaries of the trust, making the most judicious use
of the land for some or all of those resources or related services over
areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments
in use to conform to changing needs and conditions and realizing that
some land may be used for less than all of the resources; and
(b) harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources, each
with the other, will result without impairment of the productivity of the
land, with consideration being given to the relative values of the various
resources.
The site has numerous positive attributes, including location, accessibility,
proximity to municipal services and utilities, suitable soils and topography, and low
acquisition costs. Its location west of Flathead Valley Community College (FVCC)
and immediately adjacent to U.S. Hwy 93, which is scheduled to be widened and
reconstructed in 1996, is of particular significance. U.S. Hwy 93 will be five lanes
(four travel lanes with a center turn lane) upon reconstruction which will provide
excellent access to the site. Furthermore, both the Four -Mile Drive/U.S. Hwy 93
and the Reserve Drive/U.S. Hwy 93 intersections are signalized and will have right -
turn lanes constructed. Improved non -motorized (pedestrian, bicycle) infrastructure
is included in the highway reconstruction plans as well. Locating the outdoor
DATE: January 23, 1996 17
recreation complex at this location will also be well complemented by the FVCC
campus. The City of Kalispell, in a cooperative effort with the college and the
Kalispell Tennis Association, has recently constructed an eight -court outdoor tennis
facility on the FVCC campus. Additionally, the college is expanding its athletic
department, recently adding both men's and women's soccer teams.
Abutting the city limits of Kalispell, the site can be easily and economically served
by all City utilities. Water is now available at the intersection of U.S. Hwy 93 and
Four -Mile Drive, and this year's City budget includes funds to extend sanitary sewer
to Reserve Drive. There is also an on -site water well for which the state has water
rights for irrigation. A study done for the City by Thomas, Dean and Hoskins in
August of 1994 rates the water quality of the artesian aquifer as excellent and
indicates that the well has a good production history.
The topography of the southeast corner of the site is flat to gently rolling, and lends
itself well to the intended use. The irregular topography would promote creative
site design, allowing effective separation of uses on -site. The soils, though not
tested, appear to be suitable, as the site has been productively farmed since at
least 1910. There are no known environmental constraints on the property.
Option 2: located approximately % mile south of
the current city limits between Airport Road and U.S. Hwy 93, was purchased by
the City in the early 1980s for use as a sludge injection compost site. With the
construction of the City's new wastewater treatment plant in the early 1990s, the
need for this sewage composting site was eliminated. An attempt was made by
the City to lease the site to the Kalispell Pee Wee Baseball Association but, because
the site was originally purchased with a 75% EPA match, the City cannot use the
property for anything other than a sewage injection field until the EPA is
reimbursed. The City is obligated to reimburse the EPA 75% of the current fair
market value of the property. The property has been appraised at $85,000.00.
In addition to a substantial initial expense for the land (the EPA reimbursement), the
Cemetery Road site has other limitations as well. Foremost is the size of the site,
just 40 acres. The immediate needs of Pee Wee and Babe Ruth baseball could
probably be met at this location, but there would be no surplus land for future
expansion, and no accommodations for either girls softball or youth soccer. The
location of the property is also less than ideal. Located south of town, it is not
easily accessible from most of the community, particularly for pedestrians and
bicyclists. The widening and reconstruction of U.S. Hwy 93 may improve access
to the site, but it is still a great distance from many parts of the community. At
this time, the site is not served by either municipal water or sewer service. The
nearest municipal utilities are approximately 1.5 miles from the site on Airport
DATE: January 23, 1996 18
Road. Bringing sewer and water to the site, or drilfing a water well and providing
an on -site septic system, will add substantially to the cost of developing this site.
On the positive side, the site is physically well suited for the intended use. It is
relatively flat and there are no known environmental constraints. An analysis of
soils done in 1993 indicated that no threats to human health existed, and the
property's potential use for outdoor sports was not affected.
Option 3: The Lincoln Site is a third potential site for the relocation of the
ballfields, and is located in the Evergreen area, south of Conrad Drive. The
property, approximately 100 acres in size, is apparently being made available by the
owner under certain (yet to be identified) conditions- Little is known about this
property, but it is the City's understanding that the owner is interested in seeing
the ballfield complex located here in conjunction with a complementary private
project.
A private consultant familiar with the project and area costs for a gingle-site
baseball, softball, and soccer complex of sufficient size to not only meet today's
needs, but to accommodate future growth of the three sports as well, helped in the
preparation of the following cost estimate. The estimate does not include land
costs but it is assumed that a minimum of 120 acres is needed and may be leased
from the State instead of purchased. It is also assurned that each of the three
sports will continue their respective historic growth rates - 10% annually. The City
Parks and Recreation Department has documented that today, there are over 2,600
individuals participating in youth soccer, girls softbafl, and Pee Wee and Babe Ruth
baseball. That number will exceed 2,900 next year. The professionally prepared
cost estimate outlined below is based on a need for a total of 22 fields - 2 Babe
Ruth, 8 Pee Wee, 6 softball, and 6 soccer at a single site.
(1)
General site work and seeding
$26,136.00
Irrigation
$ 9,147.60
Fencing
$ 8,100.00
Bleachers
$ 4,000.00
Backstops
$ 7,000.00
SUBTOTAL:.0
DATE: January 23, 1996 19
(2)
General site work and seeding
$76,665.60
Irrigation
$26,832.96
Fencing
$32,400.00
Bleachers
$16,000.00
Backstops
$28,000.00
SUBTOTAL: $179,898.56
(3)
General site work and seeding
$33,976.80
Irrigation
$11,891.88
Fencing
$24,300.00
Bleachers
$12,000.00
Backstops
$21,000.00
SUBTOTAL: $103,16B.68
General site work and seeding $ 97,200.00
Irrigation $ 34,020.00
Fencing $ 22,500.00
Bleachers $ 12,000.00
Goals and nets (1 pair/field) $ 9,000.00
SUBTOTAL: ii
Paved Parking - 350 spaces $141,750.00
Other site work $ 23,348.16
Utilities $ 50,000.00
Restroom and concession buildings $100,000.00
SUBTOTAL: $ 0.,
DATE: January 23, 1996 20
SECTION V111
CONSTRUCTION AND SIGNALIZATION OF U.S. HWY 93 AND
3RD AVE EAST INTERSECTION
In order to enhance the accessibility, marketability, value, and utility of the City -
owned 17.028 acre Parcel 12, it will be necessary to construct and signalize a new
intersection where Third Ave East meets U.S. Hwy 93. Discussions with the
Montana Department of Transportation indicate that the site will have a single point
of access and that the parcel(s) will be served by a frontage road located within the
U.S. Hwy 93 right-of-way. The improved intersection will also represent an overall
benefit to the City as it will eliminate a dangerous acute -angle intersection and
enable the City to consider reconfiguring Parcel 11, possibly increasing the usable
area, ingress and egress, and thus, the price paid and taxable valuation of land and
improvements. Estimated cost of new signal is $100.000.
A
The preceding description of the Goals and Strategies of the PLAN and the
implementation actions either required or suggested for Kalispell City Council
consideration, demonstrate the complex and comprehensive nature of the project.
A comprehensive approach to solving the Airport's problems was recommended by
TAP in 1979 and was either ignored or abandoned because of lack of support and
commitment to finance and implement the recommendations. The cost of
implementing them today is far greater than in 1979 and the demand has never
been greater.
The preliminary estimates of the cost of implementation discussed in this document
are based on the best information available. Land values were established after
review of 1995 real estate appraisals conducted by Roger D. Jacobson, MAI. The
cost of paving, fencing, lighting, equipment, and the relocation of recreation fields
is based on estimates furnished by the City's Public Works and Parks & Recreation
Departments and Sitescape Associates. The Montana Department of Transporta-
tion's Aeronautics Division also assisted with cost estimates and income
projections. Unit costs are based on actual bids for similar work performed in the
Kalispell area during the 1995 construction season.
DATE: January 23, 1996 21
A SUMMARY OF THE COSTS:
TOTAL COST OF IMPROVEMENTS IDENTIFIED IN PLAN (see p. 12) $1,000,896.00
TOTAL FOR 22 FIELD COMPLEX (see p. 20) $827,269.00
SIGNALIZATION COST $100,000.00
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Contingency - 10%
$1,928,165.00
192,816.50
This section will discuss several financing alternatives the Kalispell City Council
may consider and employ to implement the recommendations contained in this
document. Financing alternatives include: local government, state, regional,
federal, and private.
It is possible, and more than likely, it will prove necessary to employ several of the
alternatives discussed here by encouraging the formation of a public/private
partnership of federal, state, and local public and private interests -- all working
together to accomplish the goals of the PLAN.
The old notion that the federal or state government is going to bail the older cities,
and their airports, out of all of their difficulties is a delusion. This is not to say that
the federal government should be eliminated as a possible source for financing the
solutions to Kalispell's revitalization problems but the advice offered in this section
is that self-help rather than aid from the outside should be the emphasis of any
redevelopment plan.
The premise that local financing tools ought to be considered first is important if
this PLAN is to be implemented. Thus, local, state, regional, and federal financing
is presented in that order because it is logical and reflects the way things usually
happen and the pragmatism of experienced planners. Private financing is discussed
last = because it is least important, but because it needs tohasized as the
final deter inapt of success. No matter how good a plan appears in print, the true
test of its worth will be the level of private financial commitment leveraged.
Leverage is a term that will be used throughout this section. Leverage is defined as
"the use of supplementary non -equity capital' (as senior securities or borrowed
money to increase the returns on equity; also, the resultant economic advantage).
The objective of this section is in part to suggest ways in which limited public
monies may be leveraged into substantial private investment... private investment
DATE: January 23, 1996 22
which will result in jobs, an improved and expanded tax base, a safe airport,
improved recreation opportunities and a more livable city.
As ecologist -philosopher Garret Hardin's quotable phrase states, ".You can never do
just one thing." So it is in developing the full range and use of financing tools
available to the City of Kalispell as it considers implementing this Plan. Don't be
content to do just one thing, learn to use financing tools in combination to
accomplish goals. There are examples in Montana where five different sources of
financing, involving federal, state, local, regional, and private funds were used to
put one project together. Be willing to be daring and innovative, develop the skillful
use and understanding of how financing techniques can make things happen. Just
as there is no one best plan, there is no "one best" financing tool. Use this section
as you would a cookbook where ingredients are listed which will satisfy certain
needs, but there are no recipes. That part is left to the discretion and individual
needs and appetites of the Kalispell City Airport public/private partnership. Bon
appetite!
Before the details of local government financing tools can be discussed, it must be
determined who will administer and implement the PLAN.
On the fifth day of June 1995, the City of Kalispell approved RESOLUTION
NO. 4210, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO EXERCISE ALL POWERS
GRANTED UNDER THE "AIRPORT AUTHORITIES ACT" (TITLE 67, CHAPTER 11,
MONTANA CODE ANNOTATED) FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPERATING,
MAINTAINING AND EXPANDING THE KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT AND TO CREATE
AN AIRPORT ADVISORY BOARD.
Section V of Resolution 4210 (a copy is attached as Exhibit 2), resolves "that on or
before July 1, 1996, the City Council shall create a municipal airport authority with
all the authority granted to municipal airport authorities under Title 67, Chapter 11,
Parts 1, 2, and 3, Montana Code Annotated." Therefore. it is assumed the
KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN will be implernented and
administered by the AirDort Authority. NOT th alis ell Citv Council. What does
Chapter 11, AIRPORT AUTHORITIES, Part 1, Organization and General Provisions
(cited as the "Airport Authorities Act"), Montana Code Annotated, authorize? (A
copy of Chapter 11 is attached as Exhibit 3.)
The City of Kalispell may:
1. create a public body, corporate and politic, to be known as a municipal
airport authority... which shall be authorized to exercise its functions...
DATE: January 23, 1996 23
2. by resolution determine to exercise any or all powers granted to such
authorities in this chapter until or un!ess such rowers are or have been
cgnferred upon a municipal or regional airport authority.
3. Upon the adoption of a resolution creating a municipal airport authority,
...appoint not less than five persons as commissioners of the authority.
4. (67-11-103) with two or more municipalities, i.e. Kalispell & Flathead
County, create a regional airport authority.
5. adopt a joint resolution consenting to a regional awthority: proAded that if
a munici ap (airport authority_for any municibe included in
the reaLQnal authority is then in existence - o commissioners of the
municipal authority must consent to the inclusion of the mun.. ftjnAbi
regional authority. Note: Upon the inclusion of any municipality in the
regional authority, all rights, contracts, obligations, and property, real and
personal, of the municipal authority shall be in the name of and vest in the
regional authority.
6. decrease the regional airport authority if each of the municipalities then
included in -the regional authority and the commissioners of the regional
authority consent to the decrease and make provisions for the retention or
disposition of its assets and liabilities.
7. not adopt any resolution authorized by this section without a public
hearing thereon.
S. have the same powers as all other political subdivisions in the adoption
and enforcement of comprehensive airport zoning regulations as provided for
by the laws of this state.
9. (67-11-105) exercise public and governmental functions including:
(a) the acquisition of any land or interest therein
(b) the planning, acquisition, establishment, development, construction,
improvement, maintenance, equipment, operation, regulation, and protection
of airports and air navigation facilities, including the acquisition or elimination
of airport hazards, and the 'exercise of any powers herein granted to
authorities and other public agencies to be severally or jointly exercised are
hereby pclared to be public and governmental functions, exercised, for a
public purpose. and matters of public necessity. All land and other property
and privileges acquired and used by or on behalf of any authority or other
public agency in the manner and for the purposes enumerated in this chapter
shall and are hereby declared to be acquired and used for public and
governmental purposes and as a matter of public necessity.
Part 2, Powers, Section 67-11-201, MCA, contains the general powers of authority
granting an authority all the powers necessary or convenient to carry out the
purposes of Chapter 11, including the power to certify the amount of tax to be
levied for airport purposes and including, but not limited to, the power to:
DATE: January 23, 1996 24
Allow Vj
• •11 •l � •Ilil•r. �I r - - ,I� �' � _ 1� : -1! •
uppli-es, agods. and commoditi inrid-ent.to the operation Qf its
airpgrt properties., For sucb-purpo es an authorily may. by purchase, gift.
devise. lease. eminentp[oceedinas.or •
real or personal,or any interestincluding easements prl
hazardsor • outside the b!!2undaries of p#1 or i•r site.
necesaary to pgrmit thr, removal.li • obstruclion-marking. •
airport hazards.
Part 3, Finance, Section 67-11-301, MCA, gives the airport authority the authority
to certify annually to the governing bodies G) the amount of tax to be levied by
each municipality participating in the creation of the airport authority, and (ii) the
municipality shall levy the amount certified, pursuant to provisions of law
authorizing cites and other political subdivisions of this state to levy taxes for
airport purposes. `The levy made shall not exceed the maxirrrum I vv oermitted bX
the laws of this state for airDort Durg!2seslimit
established _bv_the municibaiitv_ormu_n_ic_rba it_fesin_theses-olutQn_cr�tin-a-the
thorry.'r The municipality shall collect the taxes certified by an airport authority
in the same manner as other taxes are levied and collected and make payment to
the airport authority.
Section 67-11-303 allows that "... (1) 8n authority may borrow money for any
of its corporate purposes and issue its bonds for those purposes, including
refunding bonds, in the form and upon the terms that it may determine, payable out
of any revenue of the authority ..."
It is clear that the City of Kalispell (City Council) may either act as the Airport
Authority, or it may appoint a separate body politic (Section 67-11-102, MCA)
(Kalispell City Airport Authority), or it could enter into an agreement with the
already established Flathead County Regional Airport Authority as authorized in
Section 67-11-103, MCA ...
DATE: January 23, 1996 25
and each of the municipalities than included in the regional authority and
the commissioners of the re ional authority, respectively. adopt a joint
resolution consenting thereto; provided that if a municipal airy
,authority for any ality seeking to be included. in .the regional
authority is then in etence. the commissioners of the municipal
autborily must consent o the inclusion of the municipality in the regional
hority. Upon the inclusion of any municipality in the regional
authority, all rights, contracts, obligations, and property, real and
personal, of the municipal authority shall be in the name of and vest in
the regional authority.
(3) A regional airport authority may be decreased if each of the
municipalities then included in the regional authority and the
commissioners of the regional authority consent to the decrease and
make provisions for the retention or disposition of its assets and
liabilities.
The Flathead Regional Airport Authority has an established experienced Board, a
revenue and operations history which translates into "bondable," an experienced
and well paid professional manager and staff who currently improve, manage and
maintain Glacier Park International Airport, and also general aviation airports located
in Ferndale and Whitefish. The Flathead County Regional Airport Authority has
sole taxing jurisdiction for airport purposes in Flathead County and could levy for
and expend any portion of or all of the maximum two (2) mills authorized annually
for airport purposes on the (any) airports under its jurisdiction. Currently, it has no
jurisdiction over Kalispell City.
Another alternative would be to allow the Kalispell City Airport Authority to remain
a separate body politic retaining its powers and authority while contracting with the
Flathead County Regional Airport Authority for professional management only.
This, of course, assumes the existing Board would approve such an agreement. In
other words, accept the management responsibility without full authority. Perhaps.
The existing Flathead County (Glacier Park International Airport) Authority has both
a successful management and a financial history. Its expansion and improvement
projects are financed principally through the sale of double (state and federal) tax
exempt (municipal) revenue bonds issued for specific airport purposes. Revenue
generated from aviation fuel sales, landing fees, rent and other sources is pledged
by the Authority to retire the debt on bonds sold for a 15 - 20 year period.
Additionally, the Authority can and does levy 2 mills for airport purposes. All or a
portion of the tax can be pledged to cover bonded indebtedness.
It is important to understand that all taxable property in Flathead County, including
all taxable property located within the incorporated city limits of Kalispell, Columbia
DATE: January 23, 1996 26
Falls, and Whitefish, pays the full 2 mill airport tax. Thus, a Cityof Kalispell or
Kalis lll, City Airport Authority . reclud�d from exerc.. - "airRQrt" taxing
gut ority on r�o_- arty located within the CitX of Kalispell. Based on the 1995
Flathead County Taxable Value of $132,871,522, 2 mills will generate
approximately $265,743.
How much annual revenue does it take to cover the debt service on a revenue bond
sold to generate the required $2.1 +million to implement the PLAN? First, the cost
of issuing the bonds, including underwriting, analysis, legal, printing and other
miscellaneous fees, will add approximately six percent (6%) to the deal; and,
because the Kalispell City Airport has a limited or no revenue history, an additional
5 % t may be required to fund a reserve account for several years until a successful
operating history is established; therefore, assume that the authority will have to
sell approximately $2,337,300 in bonds to generate the $2.1 million needed to
fund the project.
The following chart represents the annuAl debt service required to cover a bond
sold for 15 and 20 years at an annual interest rate ranging from 6.0 to 6.5 percent.
Actual amortization schedules are attached as Exhibits 4-9.
;ECTION Vill - DEBT SERVICE - RANGE OF EXPENSE
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: $2,3371
TERM APR ANNUAL TOTAL
# OF YR. % PAYMENT INT.EXPENSE
15
6.00%
$240,655
$1,272,523
20
6.00%
$203,776
$1,577,728
15
6.25%
$244,601
$1,331,720
20
6.25%
$212,125
$1,726,097
15
6.50%
$248,578
$1,391,375
20
6.50%
$207,932
$1,651,631
Of course, interest rates can change, and the tax exempt status of municipal bonds
is the subject of on -going congressional debate and the most recent changes to the
municipal bonding authorization are currently in place. The bonds, if issued, could
be considered private purpose bonds and thus become taxable, demanding a higher
rate of interest.
DATE: January 23, 1996 27
Because of recent defaults of outstanding municipal bonds throughout the nation,
including Montana, underwriters are not only insisting on healthy funded reserves
but increased coverage ratios as well. It should be assumed that for every $1.00 in
debt service, the municipality will have to assure that there is approximately $1.25
in revenue available to cover any debt service. Thus, it should be assumed, for
discussion purposes only, that if the Authority requires $2.12 t million for Kalispell
City's redevelopment, it will have to issue $2,337,300 in tax exempt bonds and
have the ability to pledge from $254,720 to $310,723 annually to cover the debt
service and provide the coverage ratio. Of course, if the original funded reserve
and increased coverage is not required to cover any shortfall, the money will revert
to the Airport Authority when bond holders agree or all debt is paid. Where can the
City generate approximately $275,000 t in annual revenue to cover the debt?
There are several alternatives to consider.
Typically, airport authorities pledge operating revenues and, if necessary, a portion
of the annual 2 mill levy not required for maintenance and operations. Glacier Park
International, for example, generated $1,586,185 during FY 95 from operations
alone, not including federal reimbursements for improvements. The following table
details the Kalispell City Airport revenues by source & actual expenses (lumped) for
Fiscal 1990 - 1995 and the budgeted revenues and expenses for FY 1996.
DATE: January 23, 1996 28
AIRPORT REVENUES
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Proposed
1996
Annual User Fees
$1,025.00
$780.00
$1,200.00
$875.00
$712.00
$600.00
$600.00
Monody Cornrnercial
$277.00
$1.750.00
$1,500.00
$2,600.00
$2,400.00
$2,000.00
$2,400.00
Fees
Tie Down Fees
$730.00
$1,576.00
$460.00
$471.00
$703.00
$97.00
$96.00
Hangar teases/
$440.00
$677.00
$661.00
$1,011.00
$1,414.00
$1,773.00
$2,018.00
Ground teases
Fuel Tax
$3,998.00
$2,840.00
$3,410.00
$2,910.00
$5,254.00
$7,788.00
$6,000.00
Donation
$517.00
$200.00
TOTAL $6,470.00 $7,623.00 $7,231.00 $8,384.00 $10,683.00 $12,258.00 $11,113.00
REVENUE
EXPENDITURES $5,805.00 $8,200.00 $6,583.00 $6,181.00 $7,822.00 $8,401.00 $20,528.00
Cash Carry Over $665.00 $88.00 $355.00 $2,558.00 $5,419.00 $9,415.00 $0.00
It should be noted that the expense budget has not nor does it anticipate in FY96
any capital expenditures for the Airport or the recreation fields. For the past six
years the City has just maintained the facility, patched the runway and cleared
snow. The table tells the story of why the City should develop solutions to better
manage this asset and public facility. Today, Kalispell City is an airport that does
not meet modern safety or FAA standards and the recreation fields too are
substandard and unsafe, failing to meet minimum specifications for ASA softball,
USSA (Soccer field) standards, and minimum recommendations for little league
baseball field construction. More importantly, today none of the facilities meet
current demands for use. There is only one inadequate comfort station at the
softball field and only portable toilets at the little league and soccer fields. The last
capital improvement to the Airport was the runway 2" overlay completed in the
early 1980s. The City issued warrants to pay for this project and the Airport
Association disbanded when it failed to generate the revenue or the revenue
enhancement measures required to pay the warrants. The outstanding warrants
were paid off from the proceeds of sale of the old Griffin Feld located where
DATE: January 23, 1996 29
Tidyman's now stands, and the new Griffin Field Complex was constructed with
Tax Increment dollars.
Historic Airport revenue has averaged roughly $8,600 annually. Assuming an
annual interest rate of only 6 percent and a 15 year term, the amount is adequate
to retire approximately $83,500 in debt. It is obvious that today's revenue is
inadequate to cover any significant debt service requirements. What other
alternatives for revenue enhancement are available?
All existing sources of revenue must be evaluated to determine how to enhance
them and new sources must be developed and implemented. Current hanger and
ground leases generate less than $1,800 annually. Each Airport user should be
asked for suggestions as to how lease revenues could be enhanced even though
most leases do not expire until 2004 and beyond. Current leases range from a low
of $0.05/SF/YR to $0.1575/SF/YR (Section 111, pp. 7 & 8). Take out the top lease
and the rest average only $0.08/SF/YR. The existing FBOs together pay only
$2,400 in commercial fees and tie down fees generate less than $100/YR even
though Kalispell City reported 33,100 operations in 1993 alone.
The City's appraiser explored the leasing potential and compared rates throughout
the region. Their report is available and suggests there is potential for ground
lease/hangar revenue enhancement principally through leasing addition ground and
developing additional hangars on Parcels 5 & 6 (see Section 111, pp.4-5)
It is assumed that a redeveloped and improved airport with a longer runway will
increase general aviation and perhaps limited commercial use of the Airport. There
is adequate land for additional hangars, tie -downs, and other commercial airport
related activities. Fuel tax revenues should also increase with use, particularly if
more airplanes are based at Kalispell City. Pilots who now plan their trips to avoid
fueling in Kalispell need to be identified and encouraged to support Kalispell City.
Because aviation fuel is generally purchased at airports where flights originate or
terminate simply basing more aircraft at Kalispell City should increase fuel tax
revenues.
Realistically, even if revenues were doubled or tripled, say to $35,000 t per year,
the amount would only cover $339,929 in bonds (@6%-15/yr.), still far short of
the $2.1 million required.
The Airport Advisory Board has been asked to develop revenue enhancement
recommendations for Council consideration. They were not available at the time of
this DRAFT but should be available before final decisions are made.
DATE: January 23, 1996 30
OPTION 1: SURPLUS LAND SALE. Earlier in this report (Section Ill, pp 6-7) the
Haven and Daley Ballfields were described. The land is not essential for operation
of the Airport and is inadequate to meet today's and future recreation needs.
Additionally, it is a City Goal to relocate the ballfields and soccer fields. The land is
zoned B-2, General Business, and should be redeveloped to its "highest and best"
use.
Based on a June 1995 appraisal of both sites, Parcel 12, the 17.028 acres
(741,739 square feet) located west of U.S. Hwy 93 and the Airport taxiway,
should be valued at a minimum price of approximately $1.70/SF or 1,261,000
(574.0O0/acrel. Parcel 11, the 4.1 acre site located east of U.S. Hwy 93 and
bordered by 18th St East, 3rd Ave East, and Lyons Park is valued at A750.000
($4.20/SF or $182,927/acre). The combined value of both parcels is over
$ _000.000.
NOTE: Because Kalispell does not have a local charter, it must follow the state law
and procedures for disposition of surplus land allowing only the sale to the highest
bidder for the land alone regardless of the use as long as it is permitted by zoning.
It may not elect to use the more beneficial disposition procedures established by
the Urban Renewal Law which allows for developer selection and sale for
redevelopment of the land to its highest and best use, meeting redevelopment or
neighborhood plan objectives and providing the best measurable return to the tax
and employment base.
Recently, the Airport Advisory Board was admonished by the Director of the MDOT
Aeronautics Division to "avoid selling any land" when he was asked for his opinion
on what the Advisory Board should be recommending to the Kalispell City Council.
Thus, instead of outright sale, the possibility of a long term lease for private use
may be considered as an alternative. City staff concurs with the admonishment to
avoid selling land essential for airport use or future exDansion but not necessarily
land with a higher and better use for private redevelopment, i.e., Parcels 11 & 12 -
adjacent to U.S. Hwy 93.
Using an arbitrary 6% to 10% capitalization rate would indicate that Parcel 11 -
Haven Ballfields, should generate from $45,000 - $75,000NR, or $0.25/SFNR -
$0.42/SFNR in ground rent, depending on the nature of the lease arrangement.
Parcel 12 - Daley Ballfields, using the same cap rate assumptions, should generate
lease revenues ranging from $75,657 to $126,096NR, or $0.10/SFNR to
$0.17/SFNR in ground rent. If both parcels were leased at the top rate, the
DATE: January 23, 1996 31
combined lease income could reach $200,000. However, developers and lenders in
Montana and Kalispell generally dislike land leases for redevelopment even though
land costs seem to be at an all time high in the market. Perhaps the mood will
change.
The appraiser's narrative discussion and report of the highest and best use, long
term lease consideration, redevelopment potential and/or other uses permitted in
the 1-1 zoned site (Parcels 5 & 6) concludes with a statement that may have some
relevance to the lease consideration for Parcels 11 & 12 even though lba
Qbservation relates to much lower valued induct ally zoned land located on the
site side of the Airport:
"The potential for leasing to someone for construction other than that which
would be related to the city airport was examined. Assuming a ground lease
at the lower end of the proposed range, $0.075/SFNR, a one acre parcel
would have a lease amount of 43,560 X $0.075 or $3,267NR. At a 10%
capitalization rate this would suggest a site value of $32,670 ($0.75/SF).
This would compare with a 1.06 acre industrial site sale at $32,500. The
implication is that there is little if any incentive to a lessee to lease rather
than purchase, unless he could invest the capital at a return of more than
10 %. In addition an owner would have the benefits of any increase in value
with the ownership, whereas on the lease he would likely be faced with
increased lease payment in later years. The potential for leasing other than
for airport related uses thus appears minimal."
The relevance is that developers evaluate and measure not only the return on
money invested in real estate but also the return of it, and, like all investors, they
seek maximum growth and appreciation and whenever possible a tax shelter or
deferral. Paying ground rent has lost some of the appeal it used to have.
Nonetheless, the alternative is available. One final observation: The City should
consider its cost of capital and the return of and on capital invested in public
projects. Generally, it should not consider leasing public land at rates far below
what it has to pay to raise capital for other public improvements or projects or at
rates below what it receives on temporary surplus or reserve funds held and
invested for later use unless there is a greater public benefit. Other public benefits
"necessary and in the public interest" recognized by statute include safety,
employment and private investment opportunity, and an improved tax base among
other things to be considered.
The City may want to consider a combination of revenue enhancement measures
which could include a combination of outright sale, partial ground leases, or even a
participation in redevelopment projects. The City has a successful track record and
experience in forming public/private partnerships where it uses its authority to
DATE: January 23, 1996 32
encourage the maximum private utilization and investment in land in exchange for a
"public interest" participation in the project. From 1987 through the end of FY 95,
the City has received over $2.6 million in principal and interest on its UDAG loan to
the Kalispell Center Mail; LP and the PV of the mortgage it holds on the project is
over $2.7 million. It should carefully consider the advantages of creating another
redevelopment project for the Airport. The City could stimulate a project at the
Airport that would continue to pay dividends long into the future.
Because the City of Kalispell does not have a local government charter, it is
restricted by state law as to the procedures and limitations on selling or leasing
public land. The City Attorney should advise the Council on statutory limitations,
suffice it to say, flexibility and participation are not possible - unless the City adopts
an urban renewal plan and project for the area.
OPTION 3: TAX INC13EMENT FINANCED URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT (TIFI.
Because it has been over 17 years since the City first considered and adopted its
Urban Renewal Plan, and the fact that many reviewing this document may not be
familiar with the Montana Urban Renewal Law, a description of the process is
included here.
Tax Increment Financing ("TIF") may only be used in conjunction with the
implementation of an urban renewal plan and project. The City Council must
declare that urban renewal is "necessary and in the public interest" and that blight
exists in an area or areas know as the Airport Neighborhood. There is no question
the area and Airport would qualify.
The principal of TIF is that the redevelopment project is financed through the use of
npw gx d Ilars generated as a result of increased private investment stimulated by
a redevelopment project. It assumes that the existence of blight has a deleterious
effect on private investment in any area. When private investment is lacking, even
City owned properties become run down, unsafe, and needed public improvements
are neglected as lease revenues drop and property values, the basis on which taxes
are levied, stagnate or in many cases decline; and, in the case of Kalispell City
Airport, minimum safety standards must be addressed. The desire to shore up and
maintain a safe airport and the tax base then is an objective which concerns all
levying agencies - schools, state, county and city.
It can be assumed that if nothing is done to the Kalispell City Airport, levying
agencies will derive fewer and fewer tax dollars each year as the already limited tax
base erodes and leases and other operating revenues stagnate or decline. This loss
of income will require either a reduction in services and expenditures or an increase
in the mill rate, or number of mills levied, or both. It must also be assumed that if
the City of Kalispell adopts a redevelopment plan which will instill developer -
DATE: January 23, 1996 33
investor confidence, the existing tax base will be maintained at least at present
levels and improved measurably over the term of the project. The Tax Increment
financed urban renewal project, then, is intended to assure that all levying agencies
(schools, state, county, city) may continue to count on a stable "original" base
value of private property on which to levy taxes. Any increase in the fair market
value of property above the "original base" value, or the increment, will generate
new tax dollars; tax dollars that in all probability would not exist were it not for the
urban renewal project. Tax Increment is "the tax collections realized from
extending the tax levies, expressed in mills, of all taxing bodies in which the urban
renewal area or a part thereof is located against the incremental taxable value."
(Section 7-15-4283(4), MCA)
"The tax increment, (the new tax dollar) if any, received in each year from the levy
of the combined mill rates of all the affected taxing bodies against the incremental
taxable value within the urban renewal area shall be paid into a special fund held by
the treasurer of the municipality and used as provided (by law) ... "
(Section 7-15-4286(2), MCA)
The tax increments may be used to pay the following costs of or incurred in
connection with an urban renewal project:
1. land acquisition;
2. demolition and removal of structures;
3. relocation of occupants; and
4. the acquisition, construction and improvement of streets, curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, pedestrian malls, alleys, parking and off-street parking
facilities, sewers, waterlines, waterways, public buildings, and other
public improvements ... and items of personal property to be used in
connection with improvements for which the foregoing costs may be
incurred. (Section 7-15-4288, MCA)
Tax Increment funds may be pledged for the payment of revenue bonds, issued for
urban renewal projects or of general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, or special
assessment bonds issued to pay urban renewal costs (Section 7-15-4290, MCA).
All of the above -mentioned bonds are tax exempt, i.e., the interest earned by the
bond buyer cannot be taxed as income, therefore, a lower than market rate of
interest is paid by the seller (municipality).
If all the tax increment goes into urban renewal project cost, how do other levying
agencies benefit? Urban renewal should result in measurable, tangible benefits, as
DATE: January 23, 1996 34
well as keep the area's base taxable value from declining. The base taxable value
means, "the actual taxable value of all taxable property within an urban renewal
area prior to the effective date of a TIF provision" (Section 7-15-4283(2), MCA). If
blight is eliminated, and if investor developer confidence is restored in the area, all
levying agencies may continue to share in the taxes generated by the base. After
urban renewal costs have been paid and all bonded indebtedness for the project
satisfied, the segregation of tax increment will cease and all taxing bodies will share
in taxes generated by the improved tax base.
Will private developers or other property owners obtain a tax advantage? No.
There are no tax benefits or fair market value reductions to properties within the
area. Such properties will, however, benefit from any improvements within the
area which may occur because of the project.
Are there pitfalls involved with tax increment financing? There could be if the City
buys project area property without the accompanying private investment in the area
to produce increased assessed valuations and thus tax increment. The practice is
called land banking and is the kind of speculative venture that should be avoided.
The municipality should be cautious about committing anticipated tax increment
revenues until or unless the private investment, resulting in overall increased
property valuations, is assured.
A term or technique of "back-to-back escrows" is based on the principle that any
land to be acquired for private redevelopment is coupled closely with land
disposition, thus limiting the period of time during which land is in public ownership
and, therefore, tax exempt. Find the developer and enter into an agreement
establishing a price to be paid for land and the minimum value of private
improvements to be placed on the property, calculate the approximate amount of
tax increment the private investment will generate, and then make the public
financial commitment for land write down and public improvements. Make sure
that a financial feasibility test is applied, including all public costs, an estimate of
the minimum tax increment to be produced, and an estimate of what date the
increment will become available.
Does urban renewal increase property values and tax yield? Yes! In Casper,
Wyoming, for example, the net tax yield generated in the Urban Renewal Area is up
over 1400 percent. In Helena, Montana, tax yield rose over 1000 percent in seven
years. Salt Lake City, Utah, is a real success story. The Kalispell Downtown Urban
Renewal Plan - Tax Increment/UDAG Impact Report will be available before the end
of January 1996 and should serve as the best example of what a project can
achieve.
DATE: January 23, 1996 35
What if the urban renewal project actually stimulates more private investment and
thus more tax increment than actually needed to pay off bonds and the cost of
public improvements? Section 7-15-4287, MCA, allows the local governing body to
adjust the frozen base so that any tax increment not needed is distributed to other
levying agencies.
Tax increment financed urban renewal projects have been implemented in Billings,
Great Falls, Missoula, Helena, Kalispell, Bozeman, Whitefish, and Butte -Silver Bow.
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is viewed by many as one of the best solutions yet
developed to aid the ailing center city and blighted neighborhoods to once again
restore them to pre-eminence in the region.
OPTION 4: INUUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTBON (11313s). Because some of the
land fronting on Airport Road is zoned for industrial and light manufacturing, it may
be appropriate to mention the availability of IDBs although vastly limited since the
Tax Reform Act of 1986.
The legislature of the State of Montana has statutorily authorized municipalities and
counties of the state to become actively involved in the industrial promotion of the
state. Rather than forcing these political entities to sit idly by the sidelines until
private enterprise initiates the steps necessary for needed economic development,
Title 90, Chapter 5, Part 1, of the Montana Code Annotated provides that the
governing body may purchase the property necessary for an economic development
project, finance the sale of the purchase with the issuance of Industrial Revenue
Bonds and retire these bonds with the income derived from the lease or sale of the
development project.
There is practically no limit to the type of industrial development projects the
municipality or county may become involved in by issuing these revenue bonds.
However, the federal laws have imposed severe restrictions when compared to
what could be financed prior to 1986. "Project" is defined by statute as any land,
any building or other improvement and all real and personal properties deemed
necessary in connection therewith which is suitable for use for commercial,
manufacturing, agricultural, or industrial enterprises; recreation or tourist facilities;
state and federal governmental facilities; and retirement housing, hospitals, long
term care facilities or medical facilities. The Montana Supreme Court in approving
of the issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds for pollution control devices on a paper
mill held that so long as the bonds are issued for a project which reasonably falls
within one of these categories and the governing body has determined that the
project is for the public good, the courts will not disturb that legislative decision
absent a showing of a gross abuse of discretion. ELQ�. Missoula County,
155 Mont. 258, 470 P.2d 287 (1970). Section 90-5-101(5), MCA.
DATE: January 23, 1996 36
In conclusion, the issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds is a method by which a
county or municipality may actively promote the industrial development of the state
without unduly burdening either the taxpayers or the political entity's credit limit.
The county or municipality is given wide latitude as to the industrial or agricultural
projects it wishes to promote and has a great deal of discretion as to the manner in
which the project will be financed.
General Obligation Bonds may be used to aid in the planning, undertaking, or carry-
ing out of an urban renewal project (Section 7-15-4302, MCA) provided that a
majority of the qualified electors approve (Section 7-15-4218, MCA). Sewer and
water revenue bonds used to finance urban renewal project improvements are
subject to voter approval. Voters could also approve a General Obligation Bond to
finance the entire cost of relocation and development of the recreation complex
discussed as part of the project.
A municipality has the power to issue bonds to finance urban renewal, including the
payment of principal and interest upon any advances for surveys and plans, and to
issue refunding bonds for the payment of such bonds previously issued. Such
bonds shall be authorized by resolution or ordinance of the local governing body
and shall not pledge the general credit of the municipality (Section 7-15-4301,
MCA). Specifics related to urban renewal bond authority are contained in
Chapter 7, Title 15, Part 43, of the Montana Code Annotated.
OTHER FINANCING
Urban renewal and economic development activities may also be financed in part by
utilizing:
1. State gas tax funds
2. Urban or primary systems funds administered by the State Highway
Department
3. Montana Aeronautics fuel tax loans and grants
4. Special mill levies for economic development and planning.
DATE: January 23, 1996 37
STATE AND REGIONAL FINANCING
The Montana Department of Transportation (MDOT) will provide technical
assistance and can assist with transportation planning and funding of the U.S.
Hwy 93 improvements and the new intersection at 3rd Ave East and U.S. Hwy 93.
MDOT's Aeronautics fuel tax loans and grants are a recent source of possible
funding. It is a new program and has limited funding available.
FEDERAL FINANCING
Airports throughout Montana are usually constructed and improved with loans and
grants obtained from the federal government. Because Kalispell City is in close
proximity and travel time to Glacier Park International Airport, the FAA has refused
funding or even participation in any improvement to Kalispell City. However, there
is a contingent of persons throughout the region and state encouraging the City to
again approach the FAA Regional Office in Seattle to determine if there is a
possibility of getting them to review this PLAN and again evaluate possible
participation or partial funding of elements of the project. A January 1996 visit to
the Seattle FAA office is being arranged.
The State of Montana, Department of Commerce, administers several programs
that may aid communities implementing neighborhood improvement, redevelopment
or economic development programs. The program used most has been the
Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG" ) Small Cities Program. There are
strings, however, in that the use of CDBG funds must be concentrated in a
neighborhood revitalization area or as an economic development activity that serves
to attract or retain a significant number of jobs for low/moderate income residents
of the community.
CDBG funds may be used for public improvements, rehabilitation and economic
development if the projects as a whole benefit low and moderate income persons.
Individual projects must benefit low or moderate income persons, aid in the
prevention or elimination of slums and blight, or meet urgent community
development needs.
CDBG funds may be best utilized in conjunction with an urban renewal project that
is funded principally by other financing tools, although the state has no requirement
that a community do any more than clearly demonstrate need, and the ability to
administer funds. As a practical matter, the state discourages the long range
DATE: January 23, 1996 38
comprehensive community wide approach to problem solving, particularly economic
development, in lieu of smaller projects that can have tangible, visible, and
quantifiable results in one to three years time. CDBG funds could best be used to
aid in the development of new or expanding manufacturing or light industrial
business opportunities on airport property.
The grants and loans are competitive and the state will evaluate and give
preference to applicants who have done their homework, documented their needs,
and have developed a community development strategy and plan for
implementation.
• I
The true test of any redevelopment and/or economic development plan will be
whether or not the plan stimulates private investment which results in jobs, an
improved tax base, and a more humane environment. This statement has been
reiterated throughout this text because it is important. Planners, community
leaders and elected officials must realize that investor developers are motivated by
profit, reasonably secure investment, and the opportunity for investment growth.
We should perhaps add that it is a delusion to assume that a businessperson's
social conscience will prevail over his or her desire for profit, and thus compel them
to invest in our communities and at Kalispell City.
Redevelopment and economic development plans must not just treat the symptoms
of blight, inadequate public improvements and a stagnant tax base, but attack the
cause --lack of profit incentive. Federal and state programs are now focusing on
leveraging private dollars with limited grants; local government also ought to
channel its efforts in that direction. In order to do so, local government needs to
understand what profit incentives are available to businesses in addition to: low
interest loans, grants, good planning, adequate public services, technical assistance
required, and local governments interest in viability of businesses. Tax incentives
aid reasonably priced land!
It is recommended that the Kalispell City Council select Option 1 - Surplus Land
Sale; or, Option 3 - Tax Increment Financed (TIF) Urban Renewal Project; or a
combination of both.
Your staff has attempted to objectively identify and list the strengths and
weaknesses of each option. The list follows. Please review it with the caveat that
the list is not all inclusive and like any complex recipe may not include the exact
ingredient(s) or precise measure of each component to exactly suit everyone's
DATE: January 23, 1996 39
'taste.' It is our attempt to offer a combination of ingredients and flavors to
appeal to most appetites and, more importantly, to provide essential nourishment
for the general aviation pilots, recreationists, ballplayers, parents, small business
owners, innkeepers and restaurant operators, and the citizen taxpayer of the City of
Kalispell.
mum
+ PLUS +
- MINUS -
Allows sale of land and receipt of cash
Allows only the sale to highest bidder
after a legal offering - quickest solution.
with limited or no say in who or how
land is developed - cannot impose
specific site redevelopment objectives
of Airport PLAN.
High bidder pays cash on closing in
Possible restrictions on where land sale
exchange for deed.
proceeds can be spent without budget
amendment and authority - public
hearing required.
Transfer deed with no further
No say in how or even if land is
involvement or follow-up required.
developed at all... no options for
financial participation.
Quickest and simplest way out of
No way of generating additional funds
airport management responsibilities and
for underbudgeted items, unforseen
obligations - exchange of assets for
expenses or "other" neighborhood
cash.
infrastructure improvements ...gross
receipts limited to sale price.
No comprehensive redevelopment plan
Limited or foreclosed opportunity to
required - no public hearing.
use a comprehensive approach to
implement neighborhood plan.
City taxpayer receives approximately
City taxpayer receives only a small
22 percent of ad valorem tax paid on
portion (22% t) of the ad valorem tax
value of land sold plus the tax
generated from the conversion of City
generated on the value of
owned tax exempt asset for private use
improvements, if any, when today the
and development. The remaining 78%
land is tax exempt.
is shared by other taxing jurisdictions.
Requires minimum staff time to prepare
Requires the implementation plan be
sale legal ads, resolutions and
modified to reduce costs, eliminate
liquidation documents.
activities, change goals, or fund
implementation from other sources.
DATE: January 23, 1996 40
+ PLUS +
Requires : (i) Development and
adoption of a carefully considered
comprehensive plan and a project
which address specific goals and
objectives; (ii) a declaration that the
project is "necessary in the public
interest;" (iii) that a sound and feasible
financing plan exists; (iv) each affected
property owner of record must be
notified in writing about the City's plan
and the proposed project; legal notices
must be published; and, (v) a public
hearing must be held allowing general
public and affected property owners to
comment. The process assures full
public participation and comment.
Urban renewal land sales procedures
may be used, allowing the City to
specify redevelopment goals as a
condition of the offering and to select
the proposal which meets the offering
criteria and the best long term
beneficial impact to the City.
Conveyance documents may include a
contract for specific performance.
Project can be administered by an
experienced staff.
DATE: January 23, 1996 41
- MINUS -
Developing and adopting a plan may
take 45 - 120 days to develop the
PLAN or modify this document, adopt
resolutions, notify property owners,
publish notices and conduct a public
hearing. Plan will no doubt stimulate
controversy and opposition to tax
increment financed urban renewal.
Limits the number of persons
(developers) to only those legally and
financially able to redevelop the land
and to meet the conditions of the
City's offering. Those desiring to
purchase land for speculative purposes
such as appreciation, future
development, or to block specific
redevelopment may not like the offering
procedures.
Eliminates buyers who are only
interested in purchasing land for
reasons listed above.
Requires the commitment and
budgeting of staff time and expenses.
. «' a _ r •,
w
M• to•• •,• • w
a Ips o,•a r
•••.,•gas• ' s
.a •••
•.<• �•..r agts•s .• •.a r�
rf
Of Y. 0
•• •.f �tq � 6i1 Ma
" . • p so
• w .. a / , a •aa
a; •�
e a ` a to • •� 1 ` so
••sf ti 10•i •t1' t t14OIL. I
a' • P i'� �•1�
- hw
f .. a.
w K ,. ♦\ { ,00 f .. 1 /• «•- '• • • •tf .•ems...• «.<• < t_� 1 �' i O
0 to
,I •Ff IN /Mfg � •� • ` ♦ q/ .
Om
to
e.
♦ a w•tOfca
«•• w.'- «• 4��•l Klf��f<I.1•f ': <:., 1,. • !wy --<
to
of
MSo.,•
ONE
PARK,� < 1 a •
13
Pw
�.<, � ♦ � "Try `•.
• ITS t/ t••
� • n I o R i" ,. •
1 m q 1 • '
'• ht • Ft 1:
►e r 1'
keor
• ErrN-4ttlr9'hA(rS
19 2$•21 20-z6 z! \,tom 1
i
1�
' nEt
{ 12�f. • 110
1
1 129 ✓ I ttE[
1
13• /
� ib1 t!M •y -
10 Its to OR OR
j
"Y EXHIBIT 1
[W.
1l"Z ' : fi r I _
i it;:,t.=aa:. - t s3'• a . .-^�� M:: � ,•a '`a .t'.
ShoatRI
02Munidpal airportm. f T..
TyrRegional airport M..1tAs..}',
:. I. Commissioners.
. I+ r a. le..tA ♦, public a i and . governmental.
_nat r,
67-U-10& Cooperation of municipality.
Part 2 —Powers
67-11-20L General powers ofauthority.
r .
20 s xx ere s. r r o x
2DC Jointn
,y,; Supplementarypowers.
67-U-2D7 through f reserved.
Granting • of operaticut and use privileges,
through =.•::uwd. . . -
67-11-22L ve w - c a ` a, :,lad ♦ r ar a .. ,€- : - • -aa;.t +U. as e A T A .:.
67-11-222. Department control as ' >wt A r. .at • . and moome.
... through : X.r reserved.
67-11-23L Airport property a=> - acquisition by em• tea. - damnin
KY Airport Prop disposal.
67-11-241. No limitation an airport hazard twing.
Part
',
unwe
67-U-30L Municipal
67-U,V& Bonds and obliptions.
_yy Federal and state ron
40& Tax .. Ya. lt
40Out-of-stateji3".• }I! P} .M7' AiAtec4apocity.
Chapter Crow4Wavnees
Part authorities,
67-11-101. Short title. This chapter may be cited as the "Airport
Authorities
,.
�I ;.- a 7a. by ?, iu
67-11-102. Municipalairport .:'I3 t y..-, Any municipality may. by
' r l • ' •l .:i i r.' �i M '..:, • .'r. irr M X.,bi I
/ ^ ,tt 1 '+' i 'e..:.. S. !i r" S1 • ,: .. :� t : ' rl 7 i 1 "' .!. -, # ! ,:... ► ' S. ," r i - :: ' r , • a;.` ' M ' _
EXHIBIT 3
1287 AIRPORT AUTHORITIES .67-11-303
• t i t i t.' :.' 1 Y.t 1/ ti.. # p ' t }.'! #x Y•: t Y /,« f • : ► t :.:
interest of civilfi f t
,L
taine• in this t :.- i shall ! be construed st: : ed toof a municipality to regulate airport
hazards
Crow -References
Municipal ..x/. M M ., 2, )v
Part '3
Finance
67-11-30L Munidpaltax _ ,. „ The airport auffiordymay tier* :s•
tr +t ^' i..•' rtt f,' its f t
-" #,# a •. •. i : f # a. M� ' t ,#: " f! ::�� rt !( » •• i.�i it. _�.• fi'., ,.}) •:• Y rl f
r# bt 4, 1444 #:. : ` • t`i !.( t •t. r Rri # ...!'� i.. #; t't tf ""« •X#. .' f
* '
# ;) r'# ..!
!.! ` _- x � i '� .,' / � .. i1rFi ;. .:.�. �i �T�:, fFi . l+i.Y�i it?S> i "' �(: /. •:..• "-1
7M. a' • #.
[ .:.. i - ",l":.-.« ::[s, i -/ t) _ a ; ;+f-.:. t • ,• i t -.. �t r , ,.„ is . -' # i. • ... � t /
i.,_i ;,� a'i.:. �,:- •i..+ s-i t #- -^# �•t •, ! it :.: ■fit li .., .. •.
t" 0t=a0 =►r 1iU
iVA
.7:
a �` -�� of � Y '"" :'-.. •• �� � # .►. lr � . • #i ` � "f ' « -,.it - t' _ i t
jr
e. ,
Crow-1werences
67-11-303. Bonds 3 #< .:#,! ► J t:. , »- «. 'A: i t i :<`.: t t -.... .it `` t #1 io+' ft r f •
for any of its
corporatepurposes andissueits bonds for those •...: - i-► - x
including refunding t.os#d` in the form and upon the termathat A may
PMT Known
Int Per Year 0.06
Term 15
# Periods/Year 1
PRN Known 2337300
PMT Unknown 240654.87
PV Unknown 0.00
SECTION Vlll - TABLE 1-15
6.00% ANNUAL RATE
15 # OF YEARS
$1,272.523
TOTAL INT. Pd.
Term
Principal
Principal
Interest
Principal
Interest
Payment
Payment
To Date
To Date
2337300.00
1
2236883.13
100416.87
140238.00
100416.87
140238.00
2
2130441.25
106441.88
134212.99
206858.75
274450.99
3
2017612.86
112828.39
127826.48
319687.14
402277.46
4
1898014.76
119598.10
121056.77
439285.24
523334.23
5
1771240.78
126773.98
113880.89
566059.22
637215.12
6
1636860.36
134380.42
106274.45
700439.64
743489.57
7
1494417.11
142443.25
98211.62
842882.89
841701.19
8
1343427.27
150989.84
89665.03
993872.73
931366.22
9
1183378.04
160049.23
80605.64
1153921.96
1011971.85
10
1013725.85
169652.19
71002.68
1323574.15
1082974.53
11
833894.53
179831.32
60823.55
1503405.47
1143798.08
12
643273.34
190621.20
50033.67
1694026.66
1193831.76
13
441214.87
202058.47
38596.40
1896085.13
1232428.16
14
227032.89
214181.98
26472.89
2110267.11
1258901.05
15
0.00
227032.89
13621.97
2337300.00
1272523.02
EXHIBIT 4
PMT Known SECTION Vill -.TABLE 1-20
Int Per Year 0.06 6.00% ANNUAL RATE
Term 20 20 # OF YEARS
# Periods/Year 1
PRN Known 2337300
PMT Unknown 203776.47 ANNUAL PMT.
PV Unknown 0.00
$1,577,728 TOTAL INT. Pd.
Term
Principal
Principal
Interest
Principal
Interest
Payment
Payment
To Date
To Date
2337300.00
1
2273761.53
63538.47
140238.00
63538.47
140238.00
2
2206410.76
67350.77
136425.69
130889.24
276663.69
3
2135018.94
71391.82
132384.65
202281.06
409048.34
4
2059343.61
75675.33
128101.14
277956.39
537149.47
5
1979127.77
80215.85
123560.62
358172.23
660710.09
6
1894098.97
85028.80
118747.67
443201.03
779457.76
7
1803968.44
90130.53
113645.94
533331.56
893103.70
8
1708430.08
95538.36
108238.11
628869.92
1001341.80
9
1607159.42
101270.66
102505.80
730140.58
1103847.61
10
1499812.52
107346.90
96429.57
837487.48
1200277.17
1f
1386024.81
113787.71
89988.75
951275.19
1290265.92
12
1265409.83
120614.98
83161.49
1071890.17
1373427.41
13
1137557.96
127851.88
75924.59
1199742.04
1449352.00
14
1002034.97
135522.99
68253.48
1335265.03
1517605.48
15
858380.60
143654.37
60122.10
1478919.40
1577727.58
EXHIBIT 5
PMT Known
Int Per Year 0.0625
Term 15
# Periods/Year 1
PRN Known 2337300
PMT Unknown 244601.32
PV Unknown 0.00
SECTION Vill - TABLE 2-15
6.25% ANNUAL RATE
15 # OF YEARS
$1,331,720 TOTAL INT. Pd.
Temp
Principal
Principal
Interest
Principal
Interest
Payment
Payment
To Date
To Date
2337300.00
1
2238779.93
98520.07
146081.25
98520.07
146081.25
2
2134102.35
104677.58
139923.75
203197.65
286005.00
3
2022882.43
111219.92
133381.40
314417.57
419386.39
4
1904711.26
118171.17
126430.15
432588.74
545816.54
5
1779154.39
125556.87
119044.45
558145.61
664861.00
6
1645750.22
133404.17
111197.15
691549.78
776058.15
7
1504008.29
141741.93
102859.39
833291.71
878917.54
8
1353407.48
150600.80
94000.52
983892.52
972918.05
9
1193394.13
160013.35
84587.97
1143905.87
1057506.02
10
1023379.94
170014.19
74587.13
1313920.06
1132093.15
11 '
842739.86
180640.08
63961.25
1494560.14
1196054.40
12
650809.79
191930.08
52671.24
1686490.21
1248725.64
13
446884.08
203925.71
40675.61
1890415.92
1289401.25
14
230213.01
216671.07
27930.25
2107086.99
1317331.51
15
-0.00
230213.01
14388.31
2337300.00
1331719.82
EXHIBIT 6
PMT Known
Int Per Year 0.0625
Term 20
#E Periods/Year 1
PRN Known 2337300
PMT Unknown 207931.51
PV Unknown 0.00
SECTION VIII - TABLE 2-20
6.25% ANNUAL RATE
20 #E OF YEARS
ANNUAL PMT.
$1,651,631 TOTAL INT. Pd.
Term
Principal
Principal
Interest
Principal
Interest
Payment
Payment
To Date
To Date
2337300.00
1
2275449.74
61850.26
146081.25
61850.26
146081.25
2
2209733.84
65715.90
142215.61
127566.16
288296.86
3
2139910.69
69823.15
138108.36
197389.31
426405.22
4
2065723.60
74187.09
133744.42
271576.40
560149.64
5
1986899.81
78823.79
129107.72
350400.19
689257.37
6
1903149.54
83750.27
124181.24
434150.46
813438.61
7
1814164.88
88984.66
118946.85
523135.12
932385.45
8
1719618.67
94546.21
113385.30
617681.33
1045770.76
9
1619163.33
100455.34
107476.17
718136.67
1153246.92
10
1512429.52
106733.80
101197.71
824870.48
1254444.63
11
1399024.86
113404.67
94526.85
938275.14
1348971.48
12
1278532.40
120492.46
87439.05
1058767.60
1436410.53
13
1150509.17
128023.24
79908.28
1186790.83
1516318.81
14
1014484.48
136024.69
71906.82
1322815.52
1588225.63
15
869958.25
144526.23
63405.28
1467341.75
1651630.91
EXHIBIT 7
PMT Known
SECTION VIII - TABLE 3-15
Int Per Year
0.065 6.50% ANNUAL RATE
Term
15 15 # OF YEARS
# Periods/Year
1
PRN Known
2337300
PMT Unknown
248578.36 = ANNUAL PMT.
PV Unknown
0.00
$1,391,375 TOTAL INT. Pd.
Term
Principal
Principal
Interest
Principal
Interest
Payment
Payment
To Date
To Date
2337300.00
1
2240646.14
96653.86
151924.50
96653.86
151924.50
2
2137709.78
102936.36
145642.00
199590.22
297566.50
3
2028082.56 -
109627.22
138951.14
309217.44
436517.63
4
1911329.56
116752.99
131825.37
425970.44
568343.00
5
1786987.62
124341.94
124236.42
550312.38
692579.42
6
1654563.46
132424.16
116154.20
682736.54
808733.62
7
1513531.73
141031.73
107546.62
823768.27
916280.24
8
1363332.93
150198.80
98379.56
973967.07
1014659.81
9
1203371.21
159961.72
88616.64
1133928.79
1103276.45
10
1033011.98
170359.23
78219.13
1304288.02
1181495.57
11 '
851579.40
181432.58
67145.78
1485720.60
1248641.35
12
658353.70
193225.70
55352.66
1678946.30
1303994.01
13
452568.33
205785.37
42792.99
1884731.67
1346787.00
14
233406.91
219161.42
29416.94
2103893.09
1376203.95
15
0.00
233406.91
15171.45
2337300.00
1391375.39
EXHIBIT 8
PMT Known
SECTION Vill • TABLE 3.20
Int Per Year
0.065 6.50% ANNUAL RATE
Tema
20 20 # OF YEARS
# Periods/Year
1
PRN Known
2337300
PMT Unknown
212124.92 ANNUAL PMT.
PV Unknown
0.00
$1,726,097 TOTAL INT. Pd.
Term
Principal
Principal
Interest
Principal
Interest
Payment
Payment
To Date
To Date
2337300.00
1
2277099.58
60200.42
151924.50
60200.42
151924.50
2
2212986.13
64113.45
148011.47
124313.87
299935.97
- 3
2144705.30
68280.82
143844.10
192594.70
443780.07
4
2071986.22
72719.08
139405.84
265313.78
583185.92
5
1994540.41
77445.82
134679.10
342759.59
717865.02
6
1912060.61
82479.80
129645.13
425239.39
847510.15
7
1824219.63
87840.98
124283.94
513080.37
971794.09
8
1730668.98
93550.65
118574.28
606631.02
1090368.36
9
1631037.54
99631.44
112493.48
706262.46
1202861.85
10
1524930.06
106107.48
106017.44
812369.94
1308879.29
11 '
1411925.59
113004.47
99120.45
925374.41
1407999.74
12
1291575.83
120349.76
91775.16
1045724.17
1499774.90
13
1163403.33
128172.49
83952.43
1173896.67
1583727.33
14
1026899.63
136503.71
75621.22
1310400.37
1659348.55
15
881523.18
145376.45
66748.48
1455776.82
1726097.02
EXHIBIT 9
1-1 ught IndusVW • Page 43
CHAPTER 27.18
I-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
Sections:
27.18.010 Intent
27.18.020 Permitted Uses
V.18.030 Uses Which May Be Permitted By Conditional
Use Permit
27.18.040 Property Development Standards
27.18.010: Intent. An Industrial district to provide areas for light Industrial uses
that typically do not create objectionable characteristics (such as dirt, noise, glare, heat,
odor, smoke, etca which extend beyond the lot lines. Such light industrial uses would
Include light manufacturing, processing, fabrication and assembling of products or
materials, warehousing and storage and transportation facilities. This district is also
Intended to accommodate various adult -type uses that may otherwise Infringe or
negatively Influence the residential or commercial character of other zoning districts.
(1).
Alcohol/alcoholic beverage, manufacture.
(2).
Alcohol beverage, distribution.
(3).
Appliance distributors, wholesale/repair.
(4).
Art foundry, metal sculpture, molding and casting.
(5).
Assembly of machines and appliances.
(6).
Auction house - excluding livestock/animal/fowl.
(7).
Automobile, assembly and manufacture.
(8).
Automobileparking, commercial or public.
(9).
Automobile repair garages, excluding body shops.
(10).
Automobile service station (see definition).
(11).
Bakeries or baking plants.
(12).
Bedding/carpet/upholstery - manufacturing, cleaning, renovating.
(13).
Boat building/repair. .
(14).
Boat sales, new and used.
(15).
Book bindery.
(16).
Bottling works/soft drinks.
(17).
Building materials, storage/sale including lumber yards.
(18).
Bus repair and storage.
(19).
Cabinet shop.
(20).
Candy products manufacture, wholesale.
(21).
Car wash, automobile detailing shop.
(22).
Clothing manufacture.
(23).
Cold storage plants.
(24).
Concrete products/paving materials/mixing plants.
(25).
Contractors plants/storage yards.
(26).
Dairy bar/Ice cream manufacturing, retail on premises.
(27).
Dairy products processing/bottling/distribution.
(28).
Electrical appliance, manufacture and assembly.
(29).
Electrical sales and contracting companies.
(30).
Farm implement sales and service.
(31).
Farm machinery assembly, repair and sales.
APPrmnry I
(84). Well pump sales and service.
(85). Woodworking shops, mill work.
27.18.030: lases VflhlCh May Be Permitted Zy Conditional Use Permit
(1).
Airports and landing fields.
(2).
Auction yards, livestock.
(3).
Auto wrecking4unk yards (see definition).
(4).
Bar, tavern, cocktail lounge, clubs.
(5).
Bulk storage of Ilquified propane and similar flammables.
(6).
Canvastburlap products manufacturing, sales, and storage.
rn.
China manufacture.
(8).
Electrical distribution station.
(9).
Electric light/power generating station.
(10).
Emery cloth/sandpaper manufacturing.
(11).
Enameling, japanning, lacquering, dating, galvanizing of metal.
(12).
Excelsior/fiber manufacture.
(13).
Explosives, ammunition, fireworks, gunpowder manufacturing.
(14).
Extractive industries.
0s).
Feed/seed processing and cleaning.
(16).
Flour mill.
(17).
Fuel oil, gas, petroleum products bulk storage and sales.
t18).
Furniture manufacture.
t19).
Gasoline storage (comply with fire code).
(20).
Glass or glass products manufacture.
(21).
Grain elevators.
(22).
Heliports.
(23).
hosiery manufacture.
(24).
industry/light manufacturing - no smoke, fumes, odor, dust.
(25).
insulation material manufacture and sales.
(26).
Landfill, sanitary disposal.
(27).
taw enforcement/flre stations.
(28).
Libraries, museums, and similar cultural facilities.
(29).
Machine tool manufacture.
(30).
Monument manufacture and stone cutting and sales.
(31).
Pottery, porcelain and china manufacture.
(32).
Radio/ty broadcasting stations.
(33).
Railroad freight yards/terminals/ci cation yards.
(34).
Railroad rights -of -way.
(35).
Recycling center.
(36).
Rifle range, indoor.
(37).
Rock crushers.
(38).
Rodenticide, insecticide, pesticide mixing plants.
(39).
Schools, commercial (see definition).
(40).
Sexually oriented business.
(41).
Sewage treatment plant.
(42).
Temporary building/structure.
(43).
Textile machinery manufacture.
(44).
Textile manufacture.
(45).
Tile manufacturing.
(46).
Truck terminaVrepair/hauling and storage yards.
(47).
veterinary clinic, large animals.
(48).
Water treatment plants.
(49).
Water storage facilities.
8-2 General Susfness . Page 27
CHAPTER 27.14
27.14.010 Intent
27.14.020 Permitted Uses
27.14.030 Uses Which May Se Permitted By Conditional
use Permit
27.14.040 Property Development standards
27.14.010: Intent A business district to provide areas for those retail sales and
service functions and businesses whose operations are typically characterized by outdoor
display, storage and/or sale of merchandise, by major repair of motor vehicles, and by
outdoor commercial amusement and recreational activities. This district would also serve
the general needs of the tourist and traveler.
This district depends on the proximity to major streets and arterials. -This
district should be located in business corridors or in islands.
(1).
Appliance distributors, wholesale/repair.
(2).
Athletic club.
0).
Automobile parking, commercial or public.
(4).
Automobile sales.
(5).
Automobile rental agency.
(6).
Automobile repair garages, excluding body shops.
(7).
Automobile service station (see definition).
(8).
Bakery/deli, wholesale and retail, less than 1,500 square feet
manufacturing area.
(9).
Barber and beauty services.
(10).
Bar, tavern, cocktail lounge, clubs and associated commercial
enterprise.
(11).
Boat sales, new and used.
(12).
Building materials, storage/sale Including lumber yards.
(13).
Bus passenger terminal buildings, transit terminals.
(14).
Car wash, automobile detailing shop.
(15).
Catering establishments.
(16).
Ch urch/worsh ip/parish/su n day school buildings.
(17).
Dairy bar/ice cream manufacturing, retail on premise.
(18).
Electrical sales and contracting companies.
(19).
Food processing/retail on premises -no killing or dressing of flesh
or fowl.
(20).
Food store/supermarket, etc. - no slaughtering of flesh/fowl.
(21).
Food stores, retail/under 3,000 square feet.
(22).
Garden supplies, retail sales.
(23).
Glazier.
(24).
Heating; ventilating, air conditioning (HVAC)/sheet metal shop,
sales/service.
(25).
Hotel, motel.
(26).
Janitor supplies/services/contracting.
APPENDIX 2