Leistiko/Reference Tower Locations— —tl— a --
Fred and Connie Leistiko
From: "Fred Leistiko" <Leistiko@kalispell.com>
To: "'Fred and Connie Leistiko"' <Leistiko@centurytel.net>
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 10:22 AM
Subject: [SPAM]RE: [Fwd: Reference Tower Locations on the 20 Acre Site]]
I=
Thanks for the information. I will go to work on the additional space
needed to the north to make it happen. I was just trying to get it straight
in my mind about the spacing before I went out to visit the landowner to the
north.
Fred A. Leistiko
Airport Manager
City of Kalispell
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
406-250-3065
-----Original Message -----
From: Fred and Connie Leistiko [mailto:fleistiko@centurytel.net]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 10:47 PM
To: airport c(kalell.com
Subject: Fw: [Fwd: Reference Tower Locations on the 20 Acre Site]]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Benjamin Dawson" <dawson c,hatdaw.co >
To: "Fred and Connie Leistiko" <fleistiko@canto tel.net>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 11:00 AM
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Reference Tower Locations on the 20 Acre Site]]
> Fred
> Re your questions which Bob asked me to answer as I am back from DC:
> 1. Essentially, the towers have to be moved as a pair with the same
> spacing and orientation. So I suppose you could move them due south
> another 50 feet or so, and that way the southwest tower would be right
> at the edge of the property. The truncation of the ground system to
> the north would be by 310 feet, which would reduce the area by about
> 40%, and that's a pretty significant reduction, so we'd have to study
> its effects. You would be able to get all three guy wires for the NE
> tower on the property, however, although it might require the guy anchor
> distances to be reduced down to 50-60% with a consequent runup in cost
> of the towers.
> 2. If the orientation of the towers were changed, the nighttime
> protection requirements cannot be met with the present 1 kW power, and
10/28/2008
- --a- - --- -
> it's possible that such a change would result in service deficiency over
> the city, resulting in noncompliance with the FCC requirements. We
> looked at this pretty carefully, and it's clear that although we might
> get away with a slight change in orientation or spacing - a degree or so
> or a few feet - there wouldn't be any real benefit.
> We have not looked at any possibility of alternate designs that might
> function to meet the requirements, because they would be significantly
> more complicated - meaning they would require more towers - probably at
> least 4 total, and such "expanded" arrays might actually increase rather
> than decrease the real estate requirements.
> Regards,
> ben
>-------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [Fwd: Reference Tower Locations on the 20 Acre Site]
> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:22:18 -0700
> From: Bob Allen <EdIIei*,bh Ldaw_coni>
> To: dE, `on;(TaIia-id tw,com <da son i,.Il, da `,` ni>
>
> Has this proposed tower move already been taken care of? Fred sent this
> to me because my name is on the drawing......
10/28/2008