Loading...
Hafferman Comments 11/17/09BACKGROUND ON AIRPORT EXPANSION ///i -7/0 5' One of my first meetings as a council member in 2002 was on the airport EA. At that time the people whom I heard seemed to be evenly split between those who were in favor of improving the existing airport and those who wanted to get rid of it. My stance was that it was dedicated as an airport and unless conditions change it should be used as an airport. I favored the actions of previous Councils to finance the need improvements to the airport by selling approximately $1 million of existing airport land. I was in favor because of what was in the EA, the document that is essentially law. (read again the important length — EA pg 1-5). Two of the very first steps required by FAA were mitigation of KGEZ towers and purchase and lease all land necessary before FAA would release any money. That was 2002. We are still waiting. It wasn't until about 4 years ago (Patrick's reception) that I learned there were certain people hell-bent ,,,on extending the runway NOW to 4700' Totally against the EA. That's when I changed my stance. In the last 2-3 years, listening to citizens, who now know there is behind the scenes plan to increase the runway length to 4700', oppose spending any money on the airport if the runway is lengthened. With the so -call noise ordinance, community action against airport expansion galvanized. Citizens saw the ordinance as a back -door effort to exempt the airport from the INCREASING noise problem. 1 d s T5 Since that time citizens have been bringing forward information that should have been given to Council members and citizens. Issues I certainly didn't know existed. Such as: tA If we accept FAA money the citizens lose control of their airport property and cannot enact such laws regulating noise and type of operation. (read DIL article) Apparently there are 39 FAA stipulation that have never been presented to the Council Land owners, who we were told, were willing to sell had NOT reached an agreement -- the . Monk property. This project has been strangely managed since about 2002. And here we go again, being asked to create more costs which may end up on the backs of taxpayers..In a letter dated February 20, 2009, from Robert Peccia & Associates, with regard to a new EA, is a statement to wit: "It would make sense to do , this re-evaluation as soon as the radio towers are mitigated." Have the towers belLigated? What did we pay for that consultation. Will we ignore other consutations that don't fit with what the controlling members of the Council want? , �� i /�� ai Airport EA (Bob Hafferman, member, Ward I) We are at square one. To hire a consultant now will be doing exactly what we have been hearing — they already have their minds made up. When we must hire a consultant for a new EA, the Council needs to set some parameters for the Scoping sessions for what the Council is asking to be accomplished, based on citizen input. As examples: a. some people have urged that consideration be given to eliminating the airport and developing the property for other uses. I don't know if that is even possible. While the City purchased 135 acres in 1928, the staff should obtain and make known if the original 1929 dedication had stipulations if the airport was abandoned, or other limited factors. b. we have heard prominent land owners state THEY WILL NOT SELL. These are people highly respected for their active part in the community. Does the Council want to consider condemnation of citizens' property? c. we have heard that acceptance of FAA money means strings attached that may NOT be beneficial to the well being of the citizens of Kalispell and the surrounding neighbors. What are these limitations? Do we want to accept FAA money with these limitations? d. we know the expired EA stated that an ultimate length of 4700' may never be built.. We heard several pilots stating that a 3700' runway is ample. We heard a number of commenters state they do not object to airport improvement as long as the runway is not expanded beyond 3700'. If the airport is to remain at its present location, the Council should be very clear what length of runway is acceptable. Let's quit beating around the bush or using such terms as reconfiguration.. e. in the letter of August 19, 2004, the Director of GPI wrote that they would only be interested in managing the Kalispell City airport if it were relocated "2-3 miles south a and east of the current location". Depending on the fmdings in the dedication, the Council needs to decide if moving the airport, with 90% FAA, 5% State Aeronautical Division of MDOT and 5% taxpayer funds is an option to consider.. f. a letter -to -the- editor in the DIL made the comparison to the vote on the Golf Course lease i' and asked the question — why doesn't the Council put the city airport to the vote of the residents? That's a good question. This is a vital part of the future of Kalipell. The FULL Council needs to provide leadership. We should be guided by the public's concerns and opinions. This is NOT a situation for the staff to decide nor for a consultant to come up with all sorts of alternatives in areas the Council has no intention of following. CONSULTANT SELECTION IS PREAM TURF Before making a motion to table, which will cut off discussion, I want to hear other members.