Loading...
Stokes/Airport Expansion/Radio Tower RelocationMar 27 06 04:39p Elizabeth 406-267-0459 p.3 .iohn P. Stokes P,O. Box 186 Bigfork, Wntana 59911 phone & fax 837-2283 e-mail .toke4it4i�is}s.ttet Chris Kukulski City Manager City of Kalispell P.6. Box 1997 Kalispell, :Montana 59903-1997 via fax ( , 758 7758 Auclust ', 1999 RE: Airport Expansion / Radio Tower Relocation Dear Susan and Chris. As confirmed, the land underlyinb the, KGEZ broadcast towers is byotlier I have tluouRly examined the existingeasernznt. The land is approxin-a€ely 160 ac;A,ned es.fNl/2 SWj 4, SWI.14. NWI/4 and the SE Ii4NW I/4, S28,728,R2 l W, recorded 10-24-49, book 307, page 361) The easement was created for existing and future use for KGEZ. 11 is certainly a part offmy business plan to bid upon and acquire additional broadcast licenses fromthe FCC when the frequencies becgrrte available. The more licenses he more valuable the corporation. The existing easet ent satisfies airy and all additional business expansion. The current footpad of the antenna as noted in the Vir James IP-C. report of July 30, 1998 is+1-- 34.35 acres centered on a 240 decree ande. The land underlying the building structure on highway 93 is 6.45 The 160 acre antenna property is one of the, last renlaimng large ur vicinities cif greater Kalispell. With the planned expansion of watt intersection continued antenna easement is certainlynot the highes the continue perpetual easement limits the property to agricultural the tax base, revenue, commercial and industrial development of t Expansion of the airport is in the communities interest and future greater Kalispell area. .Additionallythe airport expansion is depe towers, leveloped properties within the a.nd sewer Mes to the cancer and best use if the property and rurposes and pre%ents maximizing e property. s ,velopment and commerce of the ant upon rernoival. of the KGEZ in order to relocate the towers to a like ]rind and suitable property with the rnir►l urn land requirements for the business would be approximately 80 acres. T�is land would haw to located ,vithin Oc area desig•rated as exhibit l- 6I3 of the July 30, 1998 rep ri. I estirnaie the minimum cost per acre in that area is cunentlyat least S6,000.00. Large tract sale are rare arYd at this writingl know of none on the market. However I expect -,vithin the next tw�m dears thereiwill be suitable property available for iower relocation. Land acquisition. is but one of the costs associated with The relocation of the tour4rs. Replace€rent, Mar 27 06 04:39p Elizabeth 406-257-0459 p.4 utilities, roads. fences, permits, engrineenng, legal fees, and as alum unforseeh t&scellaneous costs. An estimated cost for complete relocation can be easiIydetermined by acceptable professionals. As noted a very narrow window of opportunity exists to accornplish a ultitudelofidesires that would he mutually beneficial to all parties, It is also understood the municipality is cash strapped and does not fame availab�e funds for the above cash outlays for relocation. Also the FAA will not release the airport expansionnDney until the tower issue is resoliul. The concept I propose for our discussion purposes is to trade an eq tvalent propertl• either from surplus property of the city or accept a negotiated revenue bond in r-turn for KGEassuming the costs of relocating the broadcast towers when atiai lab le property becomes available. The cost of removal would be born the benefittingpai-ty. The towers shall be removed to c©iL�Ide with the airport expansion. I would expect this to be approximately two yea This This also; allows me to deal directly and promptly with land acquisition. Also opportunitywou! T. exist to acquire additional current stations and merge the antenna locations, This allows the airport expansion to proceed with certaintyand defiked costs. As I am in the process ol-closirrg the purchase of KGEZ, working wk the city to s€nlve the tower problem is in the best interest of the corporation and ]need to deter ne before !Jose which direction to place my efforts. I have always found dealing with zssu s and problerris now is always better than later. There area few ninor issues I am currently undert ing to determine if the above proposal is feasible from my perspective, and involves working out � mutually acceptable release of the tower easement with the seruiant tenant, the Anderson's. As stated the -window of oppot unityis narrow. Either the idea has nrnt or it doesn't. It's that simple. I look forward to Proceeding to the next level. I am open to any creative p oposal and am available for any question or discussion you may have, Thank You -loth for vou.T time and consideration. Sincerely, .loon Stokes