City's plan doesn't pan out

The one fact that jumps out from the Master Plan Update is just how seasonal and just how little activity actually exists at the Kalispell City Airport.

In a field count for a one-year period between September 2010 and September 2011 there were 6,603 take-offs (and by extension an equal number of landings). In actuality, this number is most likely inflated because the acoustic counter monitors used for the study were unable to discern between actual take-offs and student pilots conducting touch-and-go exercises. If the touch-and-go maneuvers were thrown out of the count, the true number of take-offs would certainly be lower.

Nevertheless, even with the touch-and–go maneuvers included in the count an analysis of the average use of the facilities is revealing. From November through March of the study period there were just six flights in and out of the airport each day. For the entire study period the daily average number of flights is 18.

The Master Plan Update remarks that the number of flights counted during the study period is considerably under the estimated 20,500 of take-off/landings forecast in the original 1999 Airport Master Plan. It then concludes that the count must be some sort of anomaly and proceeds to use various sorts of soft data to adjust the baseline activity up.

For instance, the data for the period between November and March of the study period was assumed to have been adversely affected by poor weather so the baseline number of operations was increased to correct for an “unseasonably harsh winter.” Moreover, the data was further manipulated using a ramp survey of pilots taken in 1987 that projected the annual general aviation operations closer to 7,900 — a 19 percent increase over what actual field count yielded.

A reasonable alternative to the use of fuzzy numbers to arrive at a baseline activity in order to forecast future use would be to examine airport logs to discern the actual number of flights in and out of the airport. Remarkably, the airport does not maintain a log of flight activity. Aside from the implications for the overall safety of the public (one wonders how airport management follows up on residents’ complaints of pilots violating the city’s noise abatement procedures by flying too low over the city as we are told they do when there is no record of flight activity at the airport!), it would seem obvious that the city management would want to track this information in order to determine cost/benefit analysis of the airport operations.

In the end, the Master Plan Update arrived at the following projected number of flights (take-offs and landings):

— In the base year of 2011, 7,900 total flights, which was 119.64 percent of the actual field count for that year.

— From 2012 to 2017, 9,598 total flights per year, or 145.38 percent of the actual count for the base year.

— From 2018 to 2023, 11,296    total flights per year, or 171.07 percent of the actual count for the base year.

— From 2023 to 2032, 13,843    total flights per year, or 200.09 percent of the actual count for the base year.

Even with the rosy, unrealistic forecast figures contained in the Master Plan Update, the forecasted use for the planning period does not warrant expansion from the current status B-I to B-II. A simple cost-benefit analysis calculation easily bears this out.

The projected capital cost of the expansion during the planning period is as follows:

Capital costs incurred to date (1999-2011) are $3,538,604.

Short-term capital costs (from 2012-2017) are $8,127,285.

Intermediate capital costs (from 2018-2023) are $4,945,485.

Long-term capital costs (from 2023-2032) are $2,662,880.

That brings the total projected capital cost of expansion to $19,274,254.

Meanwhile, the projected number of flights for the planning period is as follows:

—Short term (2012-2017) about 47,900.

—Medium term (2018-2023) about 56,480.        —Long term (2023-2032) about 138,430.

That brings the total number of projected flights from 2012 to 2032 to approximately 242,900.

Using simple math, the estimated capital cost per flight for the planning period is thus an astounding $79.35! While it is true that the benefit of the capital costs will extend beyond the planning period it is also true that this quick cost-benefit analysis does not take into consideration the capital cost of the existing facilities at the airport, the cost of lost tax revenue if the land were put to alternative uses, or the fact that the estimated costs are based on 2012 construction costs which are likely to be understated.

All of the forementioned factors should be taken into account if an accurate cost-benefit analysis of airport activity were conducted. Moreover, the previous analysis of the methodology used to arrive at the forecast baseline activity clearly shows that the projected number of flights for the planning period will likely turn out to be grossly inflated, an assertion supported by the fact that general aviation flights at Glacier Park International Airport have been in decline (unlike the city airport, GPI does maintain actual flight logs of all general aviation flights!).

Responsible fiscal management of governmental enterprises demands that they be self-supporting and not a drain on public resources that ought to be reserved for essential governmental functions rather than providing commercial activities that would otherwise be provided by the private market. Since practically all of the costs of the capital expansion of the airport are to be paid by taxpayers rather than airport operations you must ask yourself whether you believe that taxpayers should underwrite the cost of each flight at the city airport at such an exorbitant rate. Perhaps if these flights were for emergency purposes and lives were being saved it would be possible to answer in the affirmative. But that is not the case. As far as I am aware all flights at Kalispell City Airport are for commercial and recreational purposes.

In conclusion, I urge you to see the proposed expansion for what it is, a costly duplication of governmental services that is not needed and will adversely affect the city’s ability to provide the essential public services it should be most concerned with.

James Loran is a resident of Kalispell.