KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS – UPDATED 4/18/2012

The majority of the following questions and answers were presented at the Kalispell City Council work session on April 9, 2012 in which Stelling Engineers, Gary Gates of the FAA, and city staff were present. An audio recording of the work session is available on the city’s website at http://www.kalispell.com/mayor_and_city_council/meetings.php

 Can the FAA require the expansion of the runway from 4200 ft to the ultimate length of 4700 ft during the 20 year period if they determine that the critical aircraft usage warrants the change?

No. The minimum recommended length to protect a federal investment in the Kalispell City Airport is 4,200 feet. The 4,700 foot runway is an option in this plan and would be the maximum length the FAA would support. This has not changed from the 1999 Plan. The FAA recommends acquiring the necessary property now for a 4,700 foot runway even though this Master Plan Update does not foresee the runway length going to 4,700 in the term of this 20 year Plan.

 Does the FAA perform periodic surveys of critical aircraft usage? If not, do they require the managing entity to report this data under agreement of rule 26 of the Airport Sponsor Assurances?

The FAA seeks to have the Airport Layout Plan validated every five years. It is through this mechanism that the critical aircraft usage is periodically updated.

 Can the City of Kalispell transfer day to day operations and management of the airport to a private airport authority? How would this affect future funding sources?

It is within the City’s discretion to maintain the day-to-day management of airport operations in house or contract the day-to-day operations of the airport with a private individual or organization.

 Explain the management structure of GPI, Ferndale, Polson, and Whitefish airports (privately owned / public owned / privately managed).

The Flathead County Airport Authority owns and operates the Ferndale and Whitefish airports. Polson is owned by the City of Polson and Lake County. The City hires the FBO owner at Polson as the manager. The City of Polson and the County rely on an Airport Advisory Council to provide them the input to make the major decisions.

 If the City of Kalispell proceeds with the recommendations can or will the FAA perform a noise study? If the study is performed can the FAA set limitations (Altitude/Glide Path/ Flight Path) on the airspace around the airport to reduce noise impacts on the public? What is the likelihood of this happening and who would be responsible for financing the study?

This is discussed on page 129 of the Master Plan. However, a noise evaluation was conducted with this Master Plan. Noise contours where developed around the airport based on the projected usage. The EA completed in 2003/2004 also included a noise analysis. For the projected use of this airport, the FAA does not anticipate the requirement to do additional analysis.

 Will the runway threshold displacement rectify the issues with 18th Street and Airport Road?

The FAA requires the airport owner to hold the Runway Protection Zone in fee simple if at all possible. Some use of easements may be used minimally. Repositioning the runway in a southward direction corrects the existing problem.

 Is a Conditional Use Permit required for Flight Training Schools or is it a permitted use? Does the FAA have rules that supersede city regulations in regards to Flight Training if funds are taken? How does Rule 22 subsection A of the Airport Sponsor Assurances apply to limiting future flight schools?

The Conditional Use for airport activities within the Kalispell Zoning Ordinances includes all airport activities, including flight training schools. The current process the Council is undergoing with the Master Plan Update exceeds the public participation requirements of a Conditional Use Permit application. It is the expectation of the FAA that if federal funds are used to upgrade the airport the facility will provide the full services of an airport of that class.

 A helicopter use area with helicopter pads was suggested a few weeks ago, but they are not on the final plan. What is the status of the helicopter pads? Can ordinances be placed requiring all helicopters to take off and land on a designated pad? A majority of noise complaints and concerns being presented are due to helicopters landing and taking off using the same paths as airplanes.

The helipad is designated on the drawing in Appendix Q. The FAA is reviewing the local rules regarding the operations to and from the helipad as well as the rules set out in the Airport Standard Operating Procedures to make sure they are not too restrictive and are in compliance with the Grant Assurances. Otherwise, helicopters can be required to take off and land on a designated pad.

 Can the City of Kalispell pay more than the appraised value on land acquisition?

The City could choose to pay more than the appraised price but will only be reimbursed by the FAA and the State based upon the appraised price. Given the amount of property required to be purchased, the City does not anticipate having the funds to pay more than the appraised price.

 Have the property owners been made aware that prior appraised property values of 2004- 2006 are expected to be 50% less at this time (pg135)?

No. The City has the same information available to it as the property owners regarding comparative real property sales over the recent past. Neither the City nor its consultants have addressed the issue of price with the property owners and will not do so until a decision is reached regarding the Master Plan.

 Can a property owner have an independent appraisal? What is the process if this occurs?

Yes, if it is conducted by an FAA approved (Yellow Book) appraiser. The appraisal must then be reviewed by and approved by another Yellow Book appraiser before it may be considered.

 Have all property owners been made aware of the deferred payment funding option?

No. It is premature to have this discussion until the City Council has made its determination.

 If we agreed with a landowner to do a structured agreement and the FAA changes the rules, how would we handle that?

It would be prudent for the City to enter into purchase and sale agreements with the landowners that are contingent upon FAA participation and cooperation. The City would have to have all properties under such contracts before the FAA gives final approval to the funding. The FAA will not enter into a Capital Improvement Plan with the City of Kalispell unless it is convinced the project will be unimpeded.

 Is it possible that one property owner could hold the City hostage over a property purchase? What is the overall plan for property purchases?

As stated above, the FAA will not agree to fund the project unless and until all of the property owners enter into purchase agreements. Each agreement must be contingent upon all properties being under contract.

 If we had 16 of the 17 under contract and number 17 doesn’t want to play, what happens?

The project is premised upon all properties coming under contract. If this doesn’t happen the project will not go forward.

 How is fair market value determined for the purchase of the KGEZ Towers?

The City would likely be looking at buying out the current lease at its net present value. The physical removal of the towers would be the only item reimbursable through the FAA.

 Have all of the Court Appeals in regards to the Gardner’s KGEZ tower property concluded? If not, can a judge order the towers to remain up until the appeals process concludes?

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is considering an appeal of the Bankruptcy Court’s decision in the matter. The current owner has paid the trustee for the radio station and now owns the license. It is highly unlikely that the Court of Appeals would take any action to the detriment of a bona fide purchaser.

 Will Diamond Aire become an infield operation if the recommendation is chosen?

Diamond Aire is not currently on the airport’s Capital Improvement Plan but may be in the future in order to rectify the through the fence operation.

 Has School District 5 been notified and commented in regards to the lowering or removal of light towers at Legends Field? Why is this project not listed on the expenditure chart under Obstruction Clearing?

No. The field lights do not penetrate protected airspace so no action is required.

 There are some purchase 1st requirements for overall reimbursement. Is the City in a state of financial readiness to proceed knowing reimbursement will be staged? Is there another revenue source (money set aside from prior property sales)? What is the overall cash on hand?

The City formed the Airport/Athletic Complex Tax Increment District to do three functions: move the athletic complex; to assist investment and development on and around the airport; and to assist in the removal of aviation hazards from around the airport. The City sold airport property along Highway 93 South and those funds have been used to purchase property required for airport upgrades. These purchases are reimbursable from the FAA in the amount of $3.1 million dollars based upon the scheduled match on the proposed Airport Layout Plan. The Airport TIF has accumulated $1.8 million dollars in its fund. The Airport Enterprise Fund has approximately $200,000 in its reserve account.

 What are the three displaced businesses and five displaced residences (names and locations) associated with the recommended plan?

Red Eagle, Barrett Aviation, and Kalispell Air Repair. The residences are the two Wise homes, and three rental units in the trees behind S & S Camper business.

 Do you have plane inventories for comparable BII Airports in our region? (Same size as the end result of the recommended plan)

The inventory of aircraft on airports is monitored by the airport management and the FAA through the 5010 Data Report. This is something that is not readily available, but could be acquired with some investigation.

 There have been some allegations made by airport opposition in regards to what aircraft can currently operate legally on our field. Am I correct in saying that the Airport classification (Utility, BI, BII) does not limit the types of aircraft that can use the facility? Is airport utilization based on pilot discretion? Can a BII classified aircraft legally use our airport now? Another example in table 5-9 on pg. 91 anticipates transient aircraft weighing over the weight specifications of the future runway (12500lbs.) landing at the airport. The utilization of any General Aviation airport is at the pilot’s discretion. When a pilot plans his flight to a destination, he must consider several factors, including the airport of destination, the weather, the aircraft’s performance, and load factors. The responsibility and liability belong to the pilot. BII aircraft are currently using the Kalispell City Airport and many are return customers. There is a Table on page 91 of the Master Plan that addresses transient aircraft. This Table addresses the need for tie-downs to accommodate the larger BII aircraft in the fleet.

 There has been another allegation that Gary Gates has stated in the past that the Kalispell City Airport is a problematic location. Did he say this in the past? If so, does he still feel this way?

Gary Gates has said that the Kalispell City Airport presents some challenges. Kalispell City Airport is one of the busiest General Aviation airports in the State. There are some constraints, especially along Highway 93 South and around the Waste Water Treatment Plant. The FAA has been interested in the upgrade of this airport ever since the late 1990’s. The challenges of concern are addressed in the Study. The FAA supports this plan and its recommendations. There are a few challenges left; the land acquisition, the funding, and the radio towers. When these challenges are mitigated, the City of Kalispell will have an excellent, modern airport they can be proud of.

 The private website: http://kalispellcityairport.com/ has a projected glide path for landing on the new runway. http://kalispellcityairport.com/index.cfm?inc=page&page=57 I am assuming that the path is indicative of a specific aircraft with a certain speed and weight. Can you use this same map and show three different landing approaches based off of a small / medium / large aircraft? Can you also show the corresponding northbound takeoff patterns of each aircraft over the city?

The question is best answered on an individual basis by contacting Stelling Engineers. The question that relates to the installation of a Precision Approach Path Indicator is answered by the Master Plan Update. The plan is to install a PAPI at both ends of the new runway. The angle will be set at a fixed degree and all aircraft are expected to use the PAPI when they make an approach, regardless of their size. The pilot will see lights at the end of the runway: if he sees a yellow light he is too high, if he sees a green light he is on the correct glide path, and if he sees a red light he is too low. This assists the pilots in approaching the runway at the approved elevations.

 Will the $150,000 per year of non-primary entitlement be guaranteed for 20 years? Will this funding be guaranteed for the life of the facility?

The Capital Improvement Plan submitted by each airport owner every year is the framework the FAA uses to budget their funds. The FAA works closely with the State Aeronautical Department when they look at a project like this one. The FAA CIP goes out five years and is updated annually. The federal Airport Improvement Program is looked at each year by the U.S. Congress. The FAA just received a four year extension of the AIP a couple of months ago. The FAA is now relatively confident of their funding for at least the next four years. The City of Kalispell became the recipient of Non-Primary Entitlement Funds in 2005 and has been able to manage those funds to insure that funds were not lost over time. The City chose to lend out the funds to other airports in the State instead of forfeiting the funds after four years. Because of that management, the City has accumulated $1.275 million that can now put into this project. The FAA has been able to show Congress the need for this airport upgrade because of their persistence in keeping this project alive. This project will have to be done in pieces and phases, but as long as the City is on track, the FAA will stay committed until the project is completed in accordance with this Master Plan Upgrade.

 Does the 90% reimbursement plan only apply to Capital Improvement Projects specified in the recommended plan? If projects are identified at a future date does the 20 year clock restart when those reimbursement funds are received?

The Grant Assurances run to the last Grant. For example, any FAA funds used on a future airport project or portion of project will extend the assurances out twenty years from that date. The FAA is committed to this project and the FAA trusts the City will be committed for the same time frame. Another example is the maintenance and upkeep of the new pavement over time which is a large expense. The City will need the funds to accomplish this task and the FAA is willing and expects to provide the funds through Grant assistance. The FAA hopes the City of Kalispell will embrace the assistance they provide in maintaining this new airport.

 When does the Airport TIF sunset? Is there an early out clause? Can an Airport Authority be created when a TIF is actively overlaying the property?

The Airport/Athletic Complex TIF sunsets in 2020 with the payoff of the Airport Phase I Improvement TIF bond that was issued in 2005 and runs for 15 years. The City Council has the option to pay off the TIF bond in 2013 which would cause the TIF district to sunset at that time. On the last part of the question, the City has not considered the creation of an Airport Authority for many years.

 What is included in the relocation assistance costs under Estimated Development Cost for Site 1, Option B?

There may be some costs associated with the buyout of some leases on facilities that have to be removed in the process. There are possibly some tenant relocations if the City acquires property that has rental units (business or residential) on the property. There could be costs associated with the transportation of personal property to a new location on or off the airport. It is hard to determine this right now. However, relocation assistance is a reimbursable item when it comes to that part of the process.

 Who controls the design standards of the new FBO?

The City. It is anticipated that the FBO will move its operations into the new facility when it is built and continue the lease. The City would control the size of the new facility.

 The report states that the creation of the new center field FBO is a non-refundable expense. Is this true? (Pg. 154)

Congress included revenue generating projects as an eligible cost in the current appropriations. Currently the FAA is restricting those projects to hangars, fueling facilities, aircraft parking ramps, and tie-down facilities. The FBO building itself, offices in that building, restrooms, etc., would not be eligible for reimbursement.

 Do we have a projected cost for the new FBO?

The City will be reimbursed for the purchase of the current Red Eagle Aviation facility that had to be purchased because it would be in the safety zone for the new runway and it was a through-the-fence operation. That reimbursement money would be what the City would look to for construction of the new facility. The City would need to construct enough of a facility to enable the FBO to do their job. This would be a leased facility that would generate income for the airport.

 If the alternative site process stated that a new airport should not be located “too close to high density housing,” why is it acceptable to expand the current configuration at its current location? Is the current location “too close to high density housing?”

The City has some density that has built up around this airport. The engineers have taken this into consideration and have tried to make the conditions as safe as possible when designing an upgrade such as this one. This airport also has an Airport Affected Area around the airport that covers two miles off the ends of the runway and one mile on either side. This legislation protects the airport from encroachment future encroachment as much as legally possible. Shifting the runway further away from the density of the City is one way they have attempted to create a larger buffer. Designing the airport with all the necessary safety zones in place is a plus for this project. The FAA concurs with this opinion and will support this option.

 The no action alternative states that the airport will basically be left to deteriorate. Do the current leases require us to maintain the airport to operational standards for the total lease length? In your opinion does the current state of the taxiway and runway currently border on a breach of this agreement?

When the previous Council made a decision in 2004 to go forward with this project, several investors invested heavily in new hangar construction. They could not get bank financing on short term leases. The City Council approved a longer term lease at that time, believing that the project would go forward. If the Council decides to take no action on this project, a time will come when the City does not have the necessary funds to continue to maintain this facility in a reasonably safe condition. The City would eventually be in breach of the lease.

 Aren’t the leases 20 years, plus two five year extensions?

Yes and that would come into the equation when evaluating the value of the leases.

 How many years are left on these leases?

Most of the leases where entered into during the 2005/2006 timeframe, so they will have at least 20, and some 25 years to go.

 If we go forward with this project the City will have a 20 year commitment to the FAA anyway, right?

Yes, at least 20 years.

 Has there been an on-field accident caused by the proximity of the runway to taxiway?

Not according to the records maintained by the City or according to any memory of City staff.

 The current Red Eagle FBO lease states the city is required to buy-out the fixed assets and loss of future revenue for the lease period. Can an estimated value be established at this time if the airport was immediately closed? Is it standard procedure to pay loss of future revenue on FBO leases? Does this revenue include all aspects of Red Eagle’s operations including future flight school tuition?

It is established by appraisal of the assets and historical revenues projected into the future. It is standard for any lease. Any action the City takes to impair an investment would have consequences. The City would argue for only contract costs, not opportunity costs.

 Did the City renegotiate the insurance on the facility? Why are we budgeting $5000 for fiscal year 2011-12 when insurance has been costing $6000 - $7000 in the past? Can we project future insurance costs after all projects are completed?

The City maintains both Property and Liability Insurance on the airport. MMIA does not cover the airport liability, only the property. The City negotiates its insurance rates on an annual basis by filling out an activity report form and sending it to the insurance companies for a quote. There are only a few aviation insurance carriers to deal with. Our rates have been dropping over the past five years. The City only covers the property owned by the City at the airport. The leaseholders are required to carry their own hangar insurance.

 Why didn’t we investigate an option in which the Airport stays in its original foot print with runway and taxiway reconstruction only? This would be a City funded alternative to Site 1 option D (not meeting ARC B1 design standards but allowing us to keep a utility type airfield)

One of the five options requested by the City was one where the City would only do minor upgrades to the airport and minor safety upgrades. The engineers did include their estimates for such an option in the Master Plan.

 Is the Aviation Trust Fund the only available fund created by the industry for the industry (fuel/user fees/ticket taxes/and parts fees)? Some would have us believe that all federal funding for this project will come from this specific account, is that true? If not, how are funds created for the other federal aviation programs that will be used to fund our project?

Yes. There are no other specific federal funds available for general aviation airports. Larger commercial airports have some add-ons that they use to raise funds for capital projects. There may be some other community development funds available to do some portions of the projects that are not federally funded, such as TIF funds. But for general aviation airports, all that is available is the AIP program.

 Does the Kalispell Fire Department have the capability to fight a Jet A fuel fire?

Yes. The KFD does have a capability to fight a fuel fire with foam that is sufficient to handle the small aircraft that will be using the airport.

 Historically has an airport project started a process of this magnitude and not received federal funding or reimbursement?

Poplar airport had similar challenges as Kalispell and they worked through those over a period of a few years. The FAA was able to stay with Poplar and finally built a great GA airport for them. Broadus took almost ten years from start to finish. Hardin is ready to break ground after years of different problems. The FAA has always been able to finish a project they start, provided the owner can hold up their end of the project.

 It seems that all financial reimbursements from the Federal and State Government are not guaranteed in any way. There are trigger words throughout the report that lead to speculation and assumptions (potential reimbursement, subject to review by FAA, current federal procurement requirements and legislation, various programs, reauthorization, new 4 year bill, distributed by appropriations of Congress, eligible projects, project priority, airport ranking, discretionary appointments, funds are not assured, funding reduced, etc.)

The FAA has had a consistent authorization of the AIP program for a number of years now. The process the City of Kalispell is starting begins with this Master Plan. The process combines the FAA’s State Apportionment allocation and the City’s partnership with the Montana State Aeronautics Department. Once the FAA starts with a project, it intends to see it through to completion. If the City approves this project, the FAA will work through a CIP with the City to move the project forward.

 Can the FAA guarantee the City is reimbursed for previous expenditures or that the City is locked in at the 90/10 program or that the City will receive $150,000 a year in non-primary entitlements or that the City will have an Airport ranking high enough to make us a priority of grant assistance or that once the City pays all upfront cost associated with property purchase and tower removal the FAA will fund reimbursement?

The current federal legislation from Congress reduced the 95% share to 90% share the FAA will fund. Since there is currently not an approved project with the City of Kalispell, the 90% grant share is what the FAA will use. This will be locked in for the next four years. The NPE of $150,000 is also subject to change, but since 2002 when this program was started, that level has remained consistent. Prior to that time, there were other funding sources to look to. But the current NPE is valid for at least the next four years. Assuming the City is able to fulfill its obligation with the land and tower issues, there is enough activity at this airport for the FAA to continue to work with the City of Kalispell well into the future. The FAA will continue to fund this project as long as the City of Kalispell continues, as they have in the past few years, to meet the FAA standards associated with land acquisition and construction costs. The City needs to take the necessary actions to make sure these standards are met.

 Will the FAA fund a displaced threshold?

No. That would be an owner’s responsibility.

 What kind of reimbursement timetable can we expect if/when we proceed with the project and are approved for reimbursement?

That goes back to the CIP and the timing of those events. The FAA will discuss the timetable in more detail with the City about these large blocks of funding once the City agrees to move forward.

 Will the acceptance of non-primary entitlements reset our 20 year commitment to the FAA Grant Assurances?

Yes, it will reset the clock on grant assurances.

 Once the airport is updated, are there projects the City can partner with the FAA to address noise issues? What would you expect would be the result of a project like this?

That would be a “Need Issue” to address when it occurs. Say for example, when you reach 700 jet operations or 90,000 propeller driven operations a year the City would qualify for an FAA funded noise study. The City and the FAA does not anticipate that happening in the near future.

 If the City fails to proceed with an FAA approved airport update at this time, what support can it expect from the FAA in the future regarding an airport upgrade?

The City of Kalispell has accumulated NPE in the amount of $1.275 million without going forward on a project. The FAA is at a point where it needs to determine if the City is serious about upgrading its airport. If the City decides not to move forward at this time, the NPE funds will be withdrawn and placed for distribution to other airports through the AIP program. There would likely be a move by the FAA to remove the City Airport from the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) and as such it would not be eligible for federal funds.

 How flexible will the FAA be in meeting certain standards, say the runway ends up at 4,197 feet and the clearance between the runway and taxiway is 237 feet instead of 240 feet? Are the FAA standards absolute?

All the FAA separation standards are for safety reasons and are absolute. As far as the runway is concerned, the FAA would require the 95%, or 4,200 feet as a minimum plus the Runway Protection Zones at each end. However, the RPZ can be an aviation easement as long as there is nothing in the easement. Aviation easements are an alternative to protect those on the ground as well as the users.

 What is a through-the-fence operation and will it have any effect on this Plan?

The FAA discourages the use of a federally funded airport by those who do not have a contractual agreement with the airport. Mainly those are operations from private property onto an airport. Grant Assurances generally require that everyone using the airports are treated equally. However, Congress does grant an exception for residential use by those who have a residence adjacent to the airport with a hangar at their home. This mainly is treated as a preexisting situation. There must be a contract, compatible with other users on the airport which works out the safety and security aspects. There cannot be any special treatment by one entity. These agreements must be in affect before federal funding can occur.

 How many through-the-fence operations do we have at the City Airport?

Two operations: Barrett Aviation and Diamond Aire. Barrett Aviation would need to be acquired to move forward on this project, but Diamond Aire would not because of deed restrictions that protect the use of that property for aviation uses.

 Would a runway of 4,200 feet or 4,700 feet service a jet aircraft?

The current runway has an occasional small jet aircraft landing there. Most jet aircraft operators would look at 4,200 feet as too short for their aircraft. It depends on the aircraft performance capabilities.

 Are there any operating budgets to do the EA and the tower removal?

The estimated figures are in the Capital Improvement Plan portion of the Master Plan.

 What are the conditions of the current hangars at the airport and how many are leased?

All of the older blue hangars have been purchased already by the City as a part of the Phase I update approved in 2004 and these are planned to be removed in accordance with the existing ALP because they are either in the Building Restriction Line or are in the proposed Runway Protection Zone of that plan. All the rest of the hangars are privately owned and are new since 2005. The airport has three remaining sites identified in the existing ALP that are available for hangar construction and ground leases.

 If the City leases sites for new hangar construction, and issues a new 20 year lease, how does that affect the FAA Grant Assurances?

FAA funding agreements do not directly address leases between the City and private leaseholders.

 Do we have communications with the State Aeronautics Board?

Yes, our current in-house Airport Manager, Fred Leistiko, is a member of the State Aeronautics Board that issues the State Grants for half of the sponsor’s commitment on federal grants. That program supports approximately 40 GA airports in Montana each year.

 On the original plans it doesn’t show the helipad, why?

It is a late addition that was not shown on the previous alternatives. It developed from discussions the Airport Manager had with the FAA following complaints from the public regarding helicopter noise.

 Where would the helipad be located?

In the approximate location of the Doug and Judy Wise residence.

 The current leases are for the City owned land but the Lessees own the hangars, correct?

Yes, that is the basis of the current leases. The owners pay property taxes on the hangar improvements.

 If the City removed old hangars and made available new lease sites at 20 plus years, would the City be extending the life of the airport?

The investors and the financial institutions that partner with them on investments located on the airport make those investments only upon the reasonable assurances that the City will maintain the airport for at least the term of the lease.

 In Option 1, Site D keeps the airport where it is. If we installed a VASI could we leave the airport where it is?

A PAPI could be installed at the north end of the current runway and set the slope at 3 degrees and it would guide the aircraft to a point past the threshold a distance down the runway. This, however, would not resolve any of the safety issues with the airport. A new repositioned runway would have a PAPI installed at both ends.

 What is the cost of a PAPI?

The cost of a PAPI installed, is estimated between $20,000 and $30,000 not including the costs of annual maintenance.

 The City owns a tract of land at the corner of 18th Street and Airport Road outside the airport boundaries. With the re-alignment of the runway, would that piece of property have any use or can it be sold?

The City purchased that piece of land when it became available twelve years ago. It provides the airport with the required protection zone on the north end. If the airport is upgraded and the runway is repositioned to the south, the City could sell that land.

 What authority would the City have through the FAA and the Grant Assurances to control the helicopter noise over the City?

The FAA is considering an Airspace Study of the proposed helipad layout to see if there is a way to abate some of the noise from the small trainer helicopters.

 Can a private individual locate a heliport somewhere else in or around the City and who controls that?

There is an airspace review that the FAA conducts when a private organization requests a helipad on their property. A good example is the hospital or a clinic. The FAA deals with airspace only. The property location is a municipal concern or a land use issue.

 I notice that contracting requires Davis-Bacon. What happens when we want to issue a snow removal contract?

The Davis-Bacon only applies to federal dollars provided on a project. What the City does with its funds is not regulated under Davis-Bacon.

 Clarify the statement that if we accept federal funds we cannot restrict flight training hours.

Flight training hours cannot be restricted if federal funds are used.

 At one point we had a proposal to build some smaller towers for the radio station, is that still an option?

According to a consultant to the City, the option of a small tower array is not feasible at that location given the current license.

 Can the City restrict a helicopter landing at the airport like the Chinook?

The limitation would be a weight bearing restriction only. There is a published weight bearing capacity for the airport and the management would have to enforce that when the aircraft arrives. Aircraft operators would be responsible for any damage to a runway or taxiway.

 If the City builds this BII airport, could we have 12,500 pound aircraft landing at the airport?

With this upgrade there is potential for heavier traffic at the airport. Most BII aircraft fall into the category of 12,500 pounds or less. If a pilot lands an aircraft over 12,500 pounds and causes damage, he will be liable for those damages.

 What will be the altitude of these 12,500 pound aircraft be as they takeoff over the City?

Takeoff capabilities are aircraft specific. Many larger aircraft have more powerful engines and use less runway. Larger aircraft also generally climb faster than a small aircraft. The engineers have evaluated the approach slopes for the category of aircraft expected to utilize the airport. Moving the runway 1,000 feet south and adding 500 feet more to the runway provides more takeoff room going north.

 Where is the emergency landing areas for our airport?

The runway is the emergency landing area and other such designated areas are not engineered into airports. Standard procedures are to turn back towards the airport in the event of an emergency. Pilots must do the best they can with the situation when it occurs. Standard departures are a left turn after reaching 500 feet above the ground.

 The FAA said they would like to see some alternatives. Where are those and will we see those alternatives?

The FAA will fully evaluate any alternative the City chooses. However, the FAA is currently addressing the recommendation presented in the Master Plan. The FAA concurs with that recommendation.

 Will the City be purchasing land for the full 4,700 feet?

No, the Airport Layout Plan would show that designation, but the land would only be purchased to control 4,200 feet.