Calls renewed for public vote on city airport

Those calling for a public vote on the future of Kalispell City Airport stepped to the microphone once again Monday night, this time with a little more insistence.

During a City Council work session attended by about 45 people, answers and more questions surfaced as a part of the second meeting in the city’s airport scoping process.

The council is poised to dive into the next step on proposed upgrades at the airport during February.

That includes a Feb. 1 discussion on whether to qualify Stelling Engineers as the city’s airport consultant and a Feb. 8 workshop dissecting the primary issues and deciding how to tackle them.

Monday’s session, however, was focused on laying out answers to many of the questions raised at the first scoping session Nov. 30.

It’s a work in progress, City Manager Jane Howington explained, a progress report on the answers that city staff could supply before the council makes any decision on going to consultants for more technical answers.

The next step, she recommended, is to go ahead with an environmental assessment but do it in phases, “so there’s an assurance that we are not going to go from here to 100 in a heartbeat.”

Council members generally deferred their time for discussion to allow more public comment Monday night.

“I think this needs to go to a vote of the people. This is a critical issue,” Doc Harkins told the group. “Let the people who rightfully should make this decision, make that decision.”

Tim Wise, whose family owns much of the land the city would have to acquire if it pursues expansion, reminded the crowd that his family has no interest in selling to the city. One item in Howington’s report dealt with the land, noting that the city prefers to acquire the 30 or so acres not through condemnation but “through a mutually agreed-upon price.”

That’s not likely to happen, Wise said.

“They will have to use condemnation to take it,” he told the gathering, “so call your representatives on the council to see how they feel about that.”

Tedd Peterson, a pilot trained in Great Falls who now lives in Kalispell, advocated for moving operations to Glacier Park International Airport and abandoning the city airport.

“This is a small airport. It’s outlived its usefulness,” Peterson said. “Most pilots will go to GPI, and why not? It’s safer. This don’t seem the right use of money.”

Richard Kuhl asked the council to look at the economics of paying Airport Manager Fred Leistiko nearly $59,000 a year from the airport’s $90,000 budget. Of the money in the airport fund, Kuhl claimed, $18,000 comes from investment earnings. “That’s not stable,” he said.

Greg Goode, who also identified himself as a pilot, said it’s important to remember the full range of services — including emergency flights — based at the city airport. The city needs to be sure it gets Federal Aviation Administration reimbursement for money already spent at the airport, he said. Reimbursement comes only when the FAA approves a full project.

“Initially I was against this because we don’t need any more taxes,” Goode said. But airline ticket fees and other user sources generate the FAA money that will be used for reimbursement, he pointed out. “That money is coming to us, and if we don’t take it, it’s going to someone else.”

Airport Advisory Committee Chairman Scott Richardson pleaded for the discussion to be based on facts, not misconstrued information he said opponents are using.

Peter Gross, a pilot and airport business owner, recognized that noise and safety are big issues that would improve with the proposed runway realignment and extension.

“But what signal are you sending to businesses on Main Street? This is where people come to buy their horseshoes … their airport parts,” Gross said. “This is the fifth most popular airport in Montana, and that is because of its location, not in spite of it … It’s an enterprise fund, it stands on its own. You’ll get a safer airport, quieter skies over the city. What’s the down side, folks?”

During her presentation earlier in the evening, Howington touched on a handful of areas that public questions covered:

n She discussed concerns over aircraft-generated noise. Management techniques, a runway reorientation, aircraft size limits and a possible oversight advisory committee are some ways to address the problem, she said.

n Costs were laid out, detailing the $3,538,604.32 spent on the airport since 1999. That money came from FAA grants, Montana State Aeronautics grants, tax increment funds and an urban renewal bond. But the airport operates as an enterprise fund, meaning its operating money comes from fuel taxes, rents, commercial fees and similar sources, not from the city’s general fund.

n Safety concerns over the potential for crashes were an issue, but Howington pointed out that the proposed runway realignment and lengthening, added lighting and other upgrades could improve safety. Other actions in recent years — perimeter fencing was erected a few years back — had the same goal.

n Federal Aviation Administration funding and regulations — the FAA would reimburse 90 percent of project costs if the city follows its regulations and the state would pay another 5 percent — are standard operating procedure when federal money goes to local projects. But airport-specific requirements to maintain public access, follow FAA noise guidelines, keep compatible land uses, allow federal use, acquire and dispose of land properly and the like also are in place. The FAA also can veto contractors and has final authority over temporary closures for such events as carnivals.

n Management style changed with the city’s shift from a strong-mayor to a city-manager form of government, from former city managers to the present and with the hiring of an airport manager, Howington said. Leases for hangars, the fixed-base operations and other businesses require City Council votes under Montana law, but that was not done in the past. Howington said the council now must consider ratifying them.

n Expansion at the airport probably wouldn’t take place through land condemnation, since the council generally hasn’t supported condemnations in the past. But an expansion versus an upgrade in airport facilities would be a policy decision that the council has to make. Staff, she said, never has looked at the proposal as an expansion but rather as an upgrade.

n Information about relocating the airport to another site and closing it entirely generally were outside the city staff’s expertise, she said. But moving it out of town was considered in the past, as was closing it and using Glacier Park International Airport.

n Several other questions were on the city’s list, including land-use restrictions on surrounding property, the level of use and economic activity from the airport, and why the city is in the airport business.

Answers to these and other questions can be found at www.kalispell.com under the Hot Topics icon.

Reporter Nancy Kimball can be reached at 758-4483 or by e-mail at nkimball@dailyinterlake.com